Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[DriftingSand]

So his flip-floppy understanding of "god" is equally untrustworthy.

Would that mean that your understanding of God is always trustworthy? Do you see yourself and your mind as infallible and ironclad?

I trust what God has said about man because man's actions are consistent with God's Word concerning him (man). I trust that the earth revolves around the sun in a consistent manner just as a consistent God has designed it to do. I trust the prophetic Scriptures because the prophecies have been revealing the veracity of the Scriptures for centuries. Therefore, since I can trust what God has said about man, the universe, and the prophetic future I can trust what He says about Himself. He says that He "changes" not. Also, my Bible says precisely the same thing today as it did when I bought it 30 years ago. The words have the same meaning and message on a consistent, day to day basis.

Now if you choose to trust your fallible mind over my unchanging Bible or God then that's your choice. You are just as free to choose as I am. It's one of the great gifts that God provided for us all.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So ... anyway ... we've established that most folks (whether atheist, agnostic, or secularist) really don't have a hard and fast definition of "right and wrong." Most seem to see it as a nebulous concept that bends and sways like a reed in the wind. It's just whatever you want it to be when you wake up in the morning.

I'm still curious to know what an evolutionist would say on the subject. If mankind is just one, big mistake then there can't be a moral standard because man is just the "natural" result of evolving bacteria that have no sense of right and wrong.

Still don't know why you are ignoring my earlier post that makes this one of yours simply spam.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So his flip-floppy understanding of "god" is equally untrustworthy.

Would that mean that your understanding of God is always trustworthy? Do you see yourself and your mind as infallible and ironclad?

I trust what God has said about man because man's actions are consistent with God's Word concerning him (man). I trust that the earth revolves around the sun in a consistent manner just as a consistent God has designed it to do. I trust the prophetic Scriptures because the prophecies have been revealing the veracity of the Scriptures for centuries. Therefore, since I can trust what God has said about man, the universe, and the prophetic future I can trust what He says about Himself. He says that He "changes" not. Also, my Bible says precisely the same thing today as it did when I bought it 30 years ago. The words have the same meaning and message on a consistent, day to day basis.

Now if you choose to trust your fallible mind over my unchanging Bible or God then that's your choice. You are just as free to choose as I am. It's one of the great gifts that God provided for us all.

I have no "understanding" of god so your first shot was an embarrassing misfire.
The bible states the sun revolves around the earth, so that's strike two.
But you do state that your vision of god is your choice, so that is progress. That would make any sense of right and wrong based on scripture or god to be your choice as well, making my point for me.

 

[Chuckt]

So ... anyway ... we've established that most folks (whether atheist, agnostic, or secularist) really don't have a hard and fast definition of "right and wrong." Most seem to see it as a nebulous concept that bends and sways like a reed in the wind. It's just whatever you want it to be when you wake up in the morning.

I'm still curious to know what an evolutionist would say on the subject. If mankind is just one, big mistake then there can't be a moral standard because man is just the "natural" result of evolving bacteria that have no sense of right and wrong.

Still don't know why you are ignoring my earlier post that makes this one of yours simply spam.

Maybe they have a job and responsibilities? You are on this more than me. Are you unemployed?

 

[thebrucebeat]

So ... anyway ... we've established that most folks (whether atheist, agnostic, or secularist) really don't have a hard and fast definition of "right and wrong." Most seem to see it as a nebulous concept that bends and sways like a reed in the wind. It's just whatever you want it to be when you wake up in the morning.

I'm still curious to know what an evolutionist would say on the subject. If mankind is just one, big mistake then there can't be a moral standard because man is just the "natural" result of evolving bacteria that have no sense of right and wrong.

Still don't know why you are ignoring my earlier post that makes this one of yours simply spam.

Maybe they have a job and responsibilities? You are on this more than me. Are you unemployed?

Was I talking to you?
LOL!
I'm a supervisor. Have a little flexibility.

 

[DriftingSand]

I have no "understanding" of god so your first shot was an embarrassing misfire.

If you don't have an understanding of God then you make my point -- you have a misunderstanding of Him. Bullseye.

The bible states the sun revolves around the earth, so that's strike two.

Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Tacitly implies a revolution.

But you do state that your vision of god is your choice, so that is progress. That would make any sense of right and wrong based on scripture or god to be your choice as well, making my point for me.

But you claim, on the one hand, that nothing can be proven or disproven but then you emphasize that Scripture is wrong which you cannot prove (even if you claim you can). So you prove my point that the mind of man is fallible.

As for your previous post, I can point you to several of my posts that you glossed over or ignored altogether.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So his flip-floppy understanding of "god" is equally untrustworthy.

Would that mean that your understanding of God is always trustworthy?

One cannot ‘misunderstand’ something that doesn’t exist, as there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

Because religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, their ‘understanding’ is subjective and capricious, motivated by theists’ desire to manipulate society.

Indeed, the origin of organized religion was to serve as a form of ‘government,’ to control the lives of those subject to a given religion’s doctrine and dogma – hence the Framers’ intent to keep church and state separate, as they correctly recognized the arrogance and evil that manifests in theists invested with secular authority.

 

[DriftingSand]

So his flip-floppy understanding of "god" is equally untrustworthy.

Would that mean that your understanding of God is always trustworthy?

One cannot ‘misunderstand’ something that doesn’t exist, as there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

Because religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, their ‘understanding’ is subjective and capricious, motivated by theists’ desire to manipulate society.

Indeed, the origin of organized religion was to serve as a form of ‘government,’ to control the lives of those subject to a given religion’s doctrine and dogma – hence the Framers’ intent to keep church and state separate, as they correctly recognized the arrogance and evil that manifests in theists invested with secular authority.

And you know there is no God, how? Because you can't see Him? You can't see love either but we can see the results of it or we can see it when it's applied.

But you still haven't answered the OP's question. You can't define right and wrong nor do you know for a fact that they exist (without proof that is). After all, they can't be seen by the naked eye.

Anyway, I've seen lots of smokescreens, insults, changing of the subject, and sidestepping but nobody has really been able to answer the question.

From what I can ascertain, non-theists believe that the concepts of right/wrong are just some nebulous afterthoughts that appeared sometime during man's evolution and that anyone can just determine for themselves what is right and wrong. But when I suggest stealing a car from one of them (if it seems right to me) then I'm an idiot for even suggesting such a thing. Miraculously, the term "wrong" takes on a new and real meaning all of a sudden. That would indicate that folks know that there are rights and wrongs and don't really believe their own rhetoric as they pontificate some politically correct, secular, humanistic definition.

As for organized religion? I agree that some are TOO organized and don't really fit into the biblical paradigm. I don't belong to an organized religion. I'm simply a Christian. I don't go to any church but I do read the Bible and I do my best to apply the teachings of the New Testament. I fall short daily.

I disagree that Christianity is a form of secular government. I don't believe in controlling others or bludgeoning them into thinking the way I do. I'm all for freedom of intellectual choice. I do believe in a literal right and wrong and I believe that the 10 Commandments, Psalms, Proverbs and especially the New Testament defines the best way that folks should live their lives and treat each other. However, I don't believe that Christians should be doormats or intellectual punching bags. I stand for what I believe. My beliefs are legitimate because I've personally experienced the power of Christ in my life. You can state all you like that God doesn't exist but I know from personal experience that He does.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I have no "understanding" of god so your first shot was an embarrassing misfire.

If you don't have an understanding of God then you make my point -- you have a misunderstanding of Him. Bullseye.



Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Tacitly implies a revolution.

But you do state that your vision of god is your choice, so that is progress. That would make any sense of right and wrong based on scripture or god to be your choice as well, making my point for me.

But you claim, on the one hand, that nothing can be proven or disproven but then you emphasize that Scripture is wrong which you cannot prove (even if you claim you can). So you prove my point that the mind of man is fallible.

As for your previous post, I can point you to several of my posts that you glossed over or ignored altogether.

A misunderstanding would require an understanding that is wrong. I don't have that mistaken understanding.
Strike one.
The sun rises and sets in the bible. It stops in its arc in the sky. It revolves around the earth in scripture. Sorry you haven't read it.
Strike two.
I think the errors in scripture are myriad and incontrovertible, but I am sure you disagree. We just discussed one, the rotation of the sun around the earth.
Please point out the posts you directed at me that I missed. I hate missing ones you directed at me.

 

[DriftingSand]

If you don't have an understanding of God then you make my point -- you have a misunderstanding of Him. Bullseye.



Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Tacitly implies a revolution.



But you claim, on the one hand, that nothing can be proven or disproven but then you emphasize that Scripture is wrong which you cannot prove (even if you claim you can). So you prove my point that the mind of man is fallible.

As for your previous post, I can point you to several of my posts that you glossed over or ignored altogether.

A misunderstanding would require an understanding that is wrong. I don't have that mistaken understanding.
Strike one.
The sun rises and sets in the bible. It stops in its arc in the sky. It revolves around the earth in scripture. Sorry you haven't read it.
Strike two.
I think the errors in scripture are myriad and incontrovertible, but I am sure you disagree. We just discussed one, the rotation of the sun around the earth.
Please point out the posts you directed at me that I missed. I hate missing ones you directed at me.

Having a misunderstanding or no understanding does make your standing correct. I hate to say it but there is that old saying: "ignorance is bliss." I would be willing to bet that you believe in the "big bang" theory even though it's based on a hypothesis. But even if you don't I bet you believe certain things of which there is no tangible proof to support your belief. Of course you know better than I what you believe.

The rising and setting of the sun in biblical terms is in keeping with modern term. We all know (or strongly assume) that the earth revolves around the sun but we all say "what a beautiful sunrise or sunset." The Bible was written to, for, and about man and his relationship with God. Mankind is a main subject of the Bible so it's written from a man's eye view. But the fact that the Bible states a rising and setting of the sun strongly indicates that a revolution of the planet is taking place. That means that the Bible recognize planetary rotation and a round (rather than flat) earth.

 

[thebrucebeat]

A misunderstanding would require an understanding that is wrong. I don't have that mistaken understanding.
Strike one.
The sun rises and sets in the bible. It stops in its arc in the sky. It revolves around the earth in scripture. Sorry you haven't read it.
Strike two.
I think the errors in scripture are myriad and incontrovertible, but I am sure you disagree. We just discussed one, the rotation of the sun around the earth.
Please point out the posts you directed at me that I missed. I hate missing ones you directed at me.

Having a misunderstanding or no understanding does make your standing correct. I hate to say it but there is that old saying: "ignorance is bliss." I would be willing to bet that you believe in the "big bang" theory even though it's based on a hypothesis. But even if you don't I bet you believe certain things of which there is no tangible proof to support your belief. Of course you know better than I what you believe.

The rising and setting of the sun in biblical terms is in keeping with modern term. We all know (or strongly assume) that the earth revolves around the sun but we all say "what a beautiful sunrise or sunset." The Bible was written to, for, and about man and his relationship with God. Mankind is a main subject of the Bible so it's written from a man's eye view. But the fact that the Bible states a rising and setting of the sun strongly indicates that a revolution of the planet is taking place. That means that the Bible recognize planetary rotation and a round (rather than flat) earth.

Not remotely true.

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." From Joshua

It doesn't say the earth stopped rotating, does it?
Of course not.

What in heck does the red part mean?

 

[DriftingSand]

Having a misunderstanding or no understanding does make your standing correct. I hate to say it but there is that old saying: "ignorance is bliss." I would be willing to bet that you believe in the "big bang" theory even though it's based on a hypothesis. But even if you don't I bet you believe certain things of which there is no tangible proof to support your belief. Of course you know better than I what you believe.

The rising and setting of the sun in biblical terms is in keeping with modern term. We all know (or strongly assume) that the earth revolves around the sun but we all say "what a beautiful sunrise or sunset." The Bible was written to, for, and about man and his relationship with God. Mankind is a main subject of the Bible so it's written from a man's eye view. But the fact that the Bible states a rising and setting of the sun strongly indicates that a revolution of the planet is taking place. That means that the Bible recognize planetary rotation and a round (rather than flat) earth.

Not remotely true.

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." From Joshua

It doesn't say the earth stopped rotating, does it?
Of course not.

What in heck does the red part mean?

The "red part" is self-explanatory.

For the record, it still hasn't been absolutely proven that the earth rotates around the sun. It's strongly assumed based on today's laws of physics and mathematics but it's still just a theory. Just as evolution is a theory that is generally accepted by the scientific community but still not proven.

If it's true that God is the Author and Creator of the Universe then He has power over it. The miracle of Creation dwarfs the miracle of holding the motion of the Universe for a day.

So, back to the OP. Did the idea of "right and wrong" evolve with the biological evolution of the human body? Was there a day when there was NO right and wrong and then a day with it **poof** appeared out of thin air?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not remotely true.

"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." From Joshua

It doesn't say the earth stopped rotating, does it?
Of course not.

What in heck does the red part mean?

The "red part" is self-explanatory.

For the record, it still hasn't been absolutely proven that the earth rotates around the sun. It's strongly assumed based on today's laws of physics and mathematics but it's still just a theory. Just as evolution is a theory that is generally accepted by the scientific community but still not proven.

If it's true that God is the Author and Creator of the Universe then He has power over it. The miracle of Creation dwarfs the miracle of holding the motion of the Universe for a day.

So, back to the OP. Did the idea of "right and wrong" evolve with the biological evolution of the human body? Was there a day when there was NO right and wrong and then a day with it **poof** appeared out of thin air?

Forgive my being dense, but the red part was certainly not self-explanatory to me.

You think the earth revolving around the sun is a "theory"?
Wow!
You are a whole new breed of denier than I have ever experienced!

So you think the whole universe stopped, not just the arc of the sun as described in scripture?

Right and wrong evolves with the development of society. That's why it doesn't remain a constant, and never has in recorded history.

 

[DriftingSand]

The "red part" is self-explanatory.

For the record, it still hasn't been absolutely proven that the earth rotates around the sun. It's strongly assumed based on today's laws of physics and mathematics but it's still just a theory. Just as evolution is a theory that is generally accepted by the scientific community but still not proven.

If it's true that God is the Author and Creator of the Universe then He has power over it. The miracle of Creation dwarfs the miracle of holding the motion of the Universe for a day.

So, back to the OP. Did the idea of "right and wrong" evolve with the biological evolution of the human body? Was there a day when there was NO right and wrong and then a day with it **poof** appeared out of thin air?

Forgive my being dense, but the red part was certainly not self-explanatory to me.

You think the earth revolving around the sun is a "theory"?
Wow!
You are a whole new breed of denier than I have ever experienced!

So you think the whole universe stopped, not just the arc of the sun as described in scripture?

Right and wrong evolves with the development of society. That's why it doesn't remain a constant, and never has in recorded history.

See how easily you believe something to be absolutely true? You believe that the revolution of the earth around the sun is ABSOLUTELY true when, in reality, it's still a theory. Study up!!

Well we've spent several days worth of chatting to finally realize that you don't really believe in the concept of right and wrong. You're back to the "society" defines it. That leads me back to some of my early posts that you chose to ignore.

If Society #1 believes in a system of right and wrong that is 100% contrary to Society #2's system of right and wrong then which system is right and which system is wrong or are they both right? Using your logic they are both right!! If you are correct then it is 100% right for Society #2 to rape women, molest children, and kick old women because that Society has proclaimed that it's perfectly acceptable. Society #1 says that it's 100% wrong to rape women, molest children, or kick old women. Are they both right?

 

[Chuckt]

Still don't know why you are ignoring my earlier post that makes this one of yours simply spam.

Maybe they have a job and responsibilities? You are on this more than me. Are you unemployed?

Was I talking to you?
LOL!
I'm a supervisor. Have a little flexibility.

Yeah. You're doing a lot of supervising, I see.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Forgive my being dense, but the red part was certainly not self-explanatory to me.

You think the earth revolving around the sun is a "theory"?
Wow!
You are a whole new breed of denier than I have ever experienced!

So you think the whole universe stopped, not just the arc of the sun as described in scripture?

Right and wrong evolves with the development of society. That's why it doesn't remain a constant, and never has in recorded history.

See how easily you believe something to be absolutely true? You believe that the revolution of the earth around the sun is ABSOLUTELY true when, in reality, it's still a theory. Study up!!

Well we've spent several days worth of chatting to finally realize that you don't really believe in the concept of right and wrong. You're back to the "society" defines it. That leads me back to some of my early posts that you chose to ignore.

If Society #1 believes in a system of right and wrong that is 100% contrary to Society #2's system of right and wrong then which system is right and which system is wrong or are they both right? Using your logic they are both right!! If you are correct then it is 100% right for Society #2 to rape women, molest children, and kick old women because that Society has proclaimed that it's perfectly acceptable. Society #1 says that it's 100% wrong to rape women, molest children, or kick old women. Are they both right?

Going in circles now.
Societies come to agreements regarding morality. That is what morality is.

mo·ral·i·ty[ mə rállətee ]1.accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2.how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3.virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards

All of these definitions employ the idea that it is based on accepted moral standards. Those are determined by a society and define that society.
So yes, both are right within the context they apply, and both are wrong when viewed by the other.

I know of no other person that believes that the earth rotating around the sun is a theory.
Would you care to provide a citation for your assertion? Any credible source that would support your statement? I have literally never heard anyone think that is a "theory".
If you can educate me on this, please do.
Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

"The Earth’s orbit around the Sun has many interesting characteristics. First, the speed of our orbit is 108,000 km/h. The planet travels 940 million km during one orbit. The Earth completes one orbit every 365.242199 mean solar days(that might help explain the need for a leap year). The planet’s distance from the Sun varies as it orbits. Actually, the Earth is never the same distance from the Sun from day to day. When the Earth is closest to the Sun it is said to be at perihelion. This occurs around January 3rd at a distance of 147,098,074 km. When it is at its furthest distance from the Sun, Earth is said to be at aphelion. That happens around July 4th at a distance of 152,097,701 km. "

Read more: Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

 

[DriftingSand]

See how easily you believe something to be absolutely true? You believe that the revolution of the earth around the sun is ABSOLUTELY true when, in reality, it's still a theory. Study up!!

Well we've spent several days worth of chatting to finally realize that you don't really believe in the concept of right and wrong. You're back to the "society" defines it. That leads me back to some of my early posts that you chose to ignore.

If Society #1 believes in a system of right and wrong that is 100% contrary to Society #2's system of right and wrong then which system is right and which system is wrong or are they both right? Using your logic they are both right!! If you are correct then it is 100% right for Society #2 to rape women, molest children, and kick old women because that Society has proclaimed that it's perfectly acceptable. Society #1 says that it's 100% wrong to rape women, molest children, or kick old women. Are they both right?

Going in circles now.
Societies come to agreements regarding morality. That is what morality is.

mo·ral·i·ty[ mə rállətee ]1.accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2.how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3.virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards

All of these definitions employ the idea that it is based on accepted moral standards. Those are determined by a society and define that society.
So yes, both are right within the context they apply, and both are wrong when viewed by the other.

I know of no other person that believes that the earth rotating around the sun is a theory.
Would you care to provide a citation for your assertion? Any credible source that would support your statement? I have literally never heard anyone think that is a "theory".
If you can educate me on this, please do.
Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

"The Earth’s orbit around the Sun has many interesting characteristics. First, the speed of our orbit is 108,000 km/h. The planet travels 940 million km during one orbit. The Earth completes one orbit every 365.242199 mean solar days(that might help explain the need for a leap year). The planet’s distance from the Sun varies as it orbits. Actually, the Earth is never the same distance from the Sun from day to day. When the Earth is closest to the Sun it is said to be at perihelion. This occurs around January 3rd at a distance of 147,098,074 km. When it is at its furthest distance from the Sun, Earth is said to be at aphelion. That happens around July 4th at a distance of 152,097,701 km. "

Read more: Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

Then what you're saying is that if a person from Society #1 who believes that rape is wrong visits Society #2 then he would be in the wrong if he didn't rape women or molest children. Got it. Just wanted clarification.

Links to "Heliocentric Theory" or "model":

Heliocentric theory | Define Heliocentric theory at Dictionary.com

Astronomy. - The Heliocentric Theory.

Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory - Earth, Sun, Solar, and Kepler - JRank Articles

Well ... you get the picture. Just Bing "heliocentric theory" and you'll find a plethora of sites.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Going in circles now.
Societies come to agreements regarding morality. That is what morality is.

mo·ral·i·ty[ mə rállətee ]1.accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
2.how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3.virtuous behavior: conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards

All of these definitions employ the idea that it is based on accepted moral standards. Those are determined by a society and define that society.
So yes, both are right within the context they apply, and both are wrong when viewed by the other.

I know of no other person that believes that the earth rotating around the sun is a theory.
Would you care to provide a citation for your assertion? Any credible source that would support your statement? I have literally never heard anyone think that is a "theory".
If you can educate me on this, please do.
Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

"The Earth’s orbit around the Sun has many interesting characteristics. First, the speed of our orbit is 108,000 km/h. The planet travels 940 million km during one orbit. The Earth completes one orbit every 365.242199 mean solar days(that might help explain the need for a leap year). The planet’s distance from the Sun varies as it orbits. Actually, the Earth is never the same distance from the Sun from day to day. When the Earth is closest to the Sun it is said to be at perihelion. This occurs around January 3rd at a distance of 147,098,074 km. When it is at its furthest distance from the Sun, Earth is said to be at aphelion. That happens around July 4th at a distance of 152,097,701 km. "

Read more: Earth?s Orbit Around The Sun

Then what you're saying is that if a person from Society #1 who believes that rape is wrong visits Society #2 then he would be in the wrong if he didn't rape women or molest children. Got it. Just wanted clarification.

Links to "Heliocentric Theory" or "model":

Heliocentric theory | Define Heliocentric theory at Dictionary.com

Astronomy. - The Heliocentric Theory.

Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory - Earth, Sun, Solar, and Kepler - JRank Articles

Well ... you get the picture. Just Bing "heliocentric theory" and you'll find a plethora of sites.

If the other society REQUIRED rape or theft, the person would certainly feel out of sorts there.
I think I understand your problem with the "theory" issue.
You don't really understand the scientific use of the word.

"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

 

[BreezeWood]

So ... anyway ... we've established that most folks (whether atheist, agnostic, or secularist) really don't have a hard and fast definition of "right and wrong." Most seem to see it as a nebulous concept that bends and sways like a reed in the wind. It's just whatever you want it to be when you wake up in the morning.

I'm still curious to know what an evolutionist would say on the subject. If mankind is just one, big mistake then there can't be a moral standard because man is just the "natural" result of evolving bacteria that have no sense of right and wrong.

OP: Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

The OP was about Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

The goal posts have been moved: bait and switch.

Try again, please, because the OP is fail at this point.

not sure what you are saying Jake, but -


Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong ... If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective


the words being used define occurrences, as mentioned before relative as a force the same as Gravity each with their particular nature and influence on the Universe.

Love - Hate - Good - Evil, ... sorry Jake I did not include right and wrong -

they are not subjective but physical forces and fashion the universe by their presence.

.

 

[DriftingSand]

Then what you're saying is that if a person from Society #1 who believes that rape is wrong visits Society #2 then he would be in the wrong if he didn't rape women or molest children. Got it. Just wanted clarification.

Links to "Heliocentric Theory" or "model":

Heliocentric theory | Define Heliocentric theory at Dictionary.com

Astronomy. - The Heliocentric Theory.

Heliocentric Theory - The Triumph Of The Heliocentric Theory - Earth, Sun, Solar, and Kepler - JRank Articles

Well ... you get the picture. Just Bing "heliocentric theory" and you'll find a plethora of sites.

If the other society REQUIRED rape or theft, the person would certainly feel out of sorts there.
I think I understand your problem with the "theory" issue.
You don't really understand the scientific use of the word.

"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

theory

  Use Theory in a sentence
the·o·ry

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com

No mention of that theory actually being "FACT."

I'm not too sure how someone can actually "test" the "Heliocentric Theory." Perhaps you can point me towards someone who has. I generally accept that the earth revolves around the sun but this conversation has got me wondering if there is something that scientists are missing. Perhaps the biblical language is more literal than I thought. I've always considered the verbiage to be man-centric but who knows ... maybe there's more to it.

So you would have trouble hurting someone in another Society even if it was the norm there? What that means to me is that your personal practice of "right acts" has more to do with your personal beliefs than it does with society's.