I understand your conclusion, but I was seeing if you wanted to adequately cross-examine it to determine if there's any holes. I guess that I would start by saying that there's necessarily moral standards, because by invoking the word standard ....all you've done is invoke causal norms. Know what I mean? In any sentient commune there's "standards" for every concept - so your use of words there wasn't absolute enough to iron down the concept you're going for. I agree about your views on the God of the Bible, he's a relativist in terms of morals like everyone else, only - he's the only one if he DOES exist that has no excuse for his hypocrisy. I've always said that if the God of the Bible is the creator of existence, he's not worthy of my worship. Old covenant or new.There are no moral standards, especially not from a god that boasts about drowning nearly all of humanity. But it's fun to confuse the autistic kid with.I'll engage you in the discussion - let's ignore the triggered dingerred in the background and show him how its done.You're afraid to answer my questions, going to a private booth won't change that.I'm not the one who is afraid to debate you in the Bull Ring. You are.Your "challenge". You're challenged enough.I have offered to answer it in the Bull Ring. One on one. You against me.
So, you won't accept my challenge?![]()
First, we need to establish a definition for morals that we can both agree on, to ensure we're speaking of the same concept within the discussion. Go ahead and define that, see if we agree, and ask your questions.
Anyhoo, define morals in terms of your own understanding of the concept.....