1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

There are a lot of things that may be possible in the world, but are highly unlikely: such as dealing oneself a royal flush in poker two times in a row. Of course mathematics shows that such an event is possible, but it isn't reasonable to believe that such a thing happened without deliberate intervention. If I'm playing poker and I see you dealt two royal flushes, I'm going to accuse you of cheating. That would be the reasonable thing to do. Similarly, seeing the strong evidences for a creator from the natural world, one is reasonable to infer deliberate intervention.

[shadowhawk]

"So it seems there are no proofs at all for the existence of gods. You are wasting your time spamming false proofs in a forum where people are as educated as they are over here."

SH "You have said nothing and refuted nothing that has been said so far. We have done this dance before. Not interested."
You are more guilty of all these logical errors than anyone else Shadowhawk. You are entranced by cheap semantic tricks and shabby failed old "proofs" that nobody takes seriously, except W L Craig, who nobody takes seriously. SH Evidence??? Additionally you constantly abuse people in the most gratuitously insulting way, and presume to know things about them that, really, you clearly don't. SH: Evidence, example.???


SH:"Special Pleading
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Get your face out of the mirror and try having a proper discussion.

As usual, off topic, logical fallacies. Do a search on this topic on how many times you have done this. You have said nothing.

NAME CALLING FALLACY;
A calls B pejorative names as if this adds something to the discussion. This logical fallacy often is followed by further Ad-Hominem attacks.

Ad Hominem
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.or...ad-hominem.html

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 January 2014 - 12:39 AM.

[johnross47]

The Kalam is a shabby seive.

There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error.

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause.


1. is a statement based on observation of actual things in the universe. 2. and 3. are ascribing qualities to the whole on the basis of the qualities of the parts. A compounding error.

As an example take the set of even numbers. (2,4,6,8........) in this set each number is 2 away from the following number; but that is not true of the set. It doesn't make any kind of sense, it doesn't mean anything, to say it is 2 away from the previous set

A set might have some property in common with its members but it isn't necessarily true and Craig provides no evidence to suggest it is.

[shadowhawk]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 : The Kalam is a shabby seive. ShadowHawk SH: Name calling.

There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error. SH: So far only more name calling. Not a bit of rebuttal.
The Kalam.
1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

1. is a statement based on observation of actual things in the universe. 2. and 3. are ascribing qualities to the whole on the basis of the qualities of the parts. A compounding error. SH: So...
Did the universe began to exist? Are you saying it didn’t? Evidence...

As an example take the set of even numbers. (2,4,6,8........) in this set each number is 2 away from the following number; but that is not true of the set. It doesn't make any kind of sense, it doesn't mean anything, to say it is 2 away from the previous set SH: You are right it makes no sense nor does it address the argument in any way. Strawman! Thought disorder?

A set might have some property in common with its members but it isn't necessarily true and Craig provides no evidence to suggest it is. SH: So what. The kalam has not been addressed in any way. Weird!! Read the argument which we have already discussed..
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

REVOLVING DOOR FALLACY
1. A. And B. Have a discussion on a topic that involves several points, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5....
2. B. Does not like the way the discussion is going and though the discussion has progressed to point #5 and beyond, she repeatedly returns to point # 1 to frustrate the discussion.
3. When A. Complains, B. Claims A. Won’t discuss the issues.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 : The Kalam is a shabby seive. ShadowHawk SH: Name calling.

There are a huge number of flaws in this tired old argument. It should have been allowed to rest in its grave rather than being resurrected by Craig. One simple problem in it is that the argument as a whole is a compounding error. SH: So far only more name calling. Not a bit of rebuttal.
The Kalam.
1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause.

1. is a statement based on observation of actual things in the universe. 2. and 3. are ascribing qualities to the whole on the basis of the qualities of the parts. A compounding error. SH: So...
Did the universe began to exist? Are you saying it didn’t? Evidence...

As an example take the set of even numbers. (2,4,6,8........) in this set each number is 2 away from the following number; but that is not true of the set. It doesn't make any kind of sense, it doesn't mean anything, to say it is 2 away from the previous set SH: You are right it makes no sense nor does it address the argument in any way. Strawman! Thought disorder?

A set might have some property in common with its members but it isn't necessarily true and Craig provides no evidence to suggest it is. SH: So what. The kalam has not been addressed in any way. Weird!! Read the argument which we have already discussed..
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

REVOLVING DOOR FALLACY
1. A. And B. Have a discussion on a topic that involves several points, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5....
2. B. Does not like the way the discussion is going and though the discussion has progressed to point #5 and beyond, she repeatedly returns to point # 1 to frustrate the discussion.
3. When A. Complains, B. Claims A. Won’t discuss the issues.

[N.T.M.]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur.

[shadowhawk]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur.

Tell me how objective moral values do exist if there is no God.

[shadowhawk]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur.

Let’s define the terms of this version of the moral argument. “First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

Second, there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”

So, lets turn again to the argument. We have an objection to premise 1.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist

N.T.M.: The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur. “

It seems to me that the objection is a non sequitur, in that we are not talking about evolution which would make moral values subjective. I suspect N.T.M. actually agrees with premise 1.

[Deep Thought]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur.

Tell me how objective moral values do exist if there is no God.

1: Non sequitur.
2: A religiously biased statement and not a logical proposition.
3: This cannot be a logical consequence of your premises.

Those premises do not prove God exists.

Edited by Deep Thought, 08 January 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[johnross47]

The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
There are many forms of this argiment but I like this one. No WL Craig did not invent this and neither did I.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists

The development of morality from an evolutionary perspective is hardly surprising. The first premise is based on a non sequitur.

Tell me how objective moral values do exist if there is no God.

1: Non sequitur.
2: A religiously biased statement and not a logical proposition.
3: This cannot be a logical consequence of your premises.

Those premises do not prove God exists.

You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.

[platypus]

Tell me how objective moral values do exist if there is no God.

This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought:
1: Non sequitur.
2: A religiously biased statement and not a logical proposition.
3: This cannot be a logical consequence of your premises.

Those premises do not prove God exists.

ShadowHawk: SH
Non sequtur Deff:
“1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.”
Show me the Non sequitur.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

It is both religious and a logical proposition.
It is logical. You have to show why it is not rather than just proclame it..
I have used “evidence,” conmsistently throughout this topic, not “proof.”

johnross47
You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.
SH: Here the logical fallacies of “Name Calling,” and “Ad Hominem,” come to mind but there are many more. You have said absolutely nothing as usual.

platypus:
This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.
SH: You agree with premise one.

[shadowhawk]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Premises 1 and 2
What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well. However, platypus seems to agree with premise 1 while disagreeing with premise 2.
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870

Are there subjective moral values and do they have to follow any guidelines?

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 January 2014 - 08:44 PM.

[platypus]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

[shadowhawk]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Remember I said:
“...there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 January 2014 - 01:28 AM.

[N.T.M.]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Objectivist epistemology would be a good place to start. Although in a technical sense there are no absolutes, insofar as they do exist, they exist in this form.

[platypus]

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Or course there are, but those values are not "objective", or given from the outside. Morality is different in Aztec, Mongol, Native American or ancient Roman societies than it is in present day western world. The commonalities in morality between most human societies can be derived from the evolution of groups. Ask yourself, what are the moral values of a wolf, a shark, a spider, an alien being? Where are the "objective" values all these creatures share, if any?

Edited by platypus, 09 January 2014 - 07:39 AM.

[Deep Thought]

1: Non sequitur.
2: A religiously biased statement and not a logical proposition.
3: This cannot be a logical consequence of your premises.

Those premises do not prove God exists.

ShadowHawk: SH
Non sequtur Deff:
“1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.”
Show me the Non sequitur.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

It is both religious and a logical proposition.
It is logical. You have to show why it is not rather than just proclame it..
I have used “evidence,” conmsistently throughout this topic, not “proof.”

And it does not follow from the premises imo.

Because: If God does not exist (Premise)
Therefore: Objective moral values and duties do not exist. (The argument)

It requires a religious mind to conclude that God exists based on that argument. Because only in religion do objective moral values exist, and oftentimes refuted by the same religious texts proclaiming them. I.e. murder is wrong, but stoning someone because he works on a sunday, is okay. For the rest of us I think morality only exists in the eye of the beholder. Luckily most people are sane enough to comprehend morality as an abstract model of intersocial interactions.

Proposition: a statement to be proved, explained, or discussed

2: A religiously biased statement and not a logical proposition. # Correction. I meant statement as in a "claim".

johnross47
You've summed up this nonsense pretty completely. How can somebody who claims to be a teacher of logic possibly give this more than the few seconds needed to see that it is so trivially stupid that it it isn't even wrong. It's not wrong because it is so far from being any kind of coherent argument that it doesn't fit into any kind of error category. Don't expect any sort of reasoned explanation of why he thought it was worth posting; he never explains why he is shouting, "off topic", or "logical fallacy", or "straw man" or whatever is his insult of the week. I have never yet seen him explain any claimed logical objection. Not once. Not ever.
SH: Here the logical fallacies of “Name Calling,” and “Ad Hominem,” come to mind but there are many more. You have said absolutely nothing as usual.

Indeed jonhross.

And it's not even wrong: The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. (From wikipedia. It's also found on rationalwiki.)

I wonder how a professor of logic can believe in this.

platypus:
This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.
SH: You agree with premise one.

I see what you did there.

Edited by Deep Thought, 09 January 2014 - 09:28 AM.

[johnross47]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Remember I said:
“...there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry634870

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Something like a bit of meaningful comment at long last. I can partly go along with this use of objective/subjective; some people could write books on the distinction and its implications but this is perfectly useable, as a starting point. I would certainly deny the existence of objective moral values, not just because I see neither source nor evidence for them, but also because, as with the objectification of concepts mentioned earlier, it is a reification. Also, even if moral values were given by a god or gods, that would not make them objective; it would make them externally imposed. Your definition of course is carefully worded to allow for that....if they are imposed from outside they are not dependent on people's opinions; and that is where I depart from your definition. Objective does not mean externally imposed.

to return to the "syllogism"

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

1. sneaks in a false definition of objective. Also, since god-given values would not be objective, they would be subjectively god's, this is merely trying but failing to say that if god does not exist, god's opinions do not exist.
2. given that interpretation of 1. this becomes a detached assertive fragment with no connection to the rest.
3. there is no longer any syllogism for this to be the conclusion of. ie It's not even wrong.

The details of moral ideas vary enormously from place to place and time to time; I don't think that is controversial enough to need examples; but the deep underlying principles are surprisingly consistent, even if their implementation is very varied. The bases are mainly concerned with fairness and with protecting the survival of your own group. They evolved very early in human history. Some monkey show a basic understanding of fairness and equity, though only in relation to themselves, some apes a little more. The principles have gradually been extended out to larger and larger groups and can now be extended to all life, by more morally advanced people. For a good introduction to this, down to the biological bases of these behaviours, see Patricia Churchland's recent book "Touching a Nerve, the Self as Brain" pp 83-120, as far as I recall. (It's already packed up to move house.) It has of course been discussed by many people in different evolution related subjects.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought:
Quote
platypus:
“This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.”

SH: You agree with premise one.

Deep Thought
I see what you did there.

Why don’t you read the argument before you give a very lengthy response? You are fighting a straw man of your own creation full of other logical fallacies. Ho hummm

[shadowhawk]

Premise one seems about correct, but I haven't given any though to what else could give rise to "objective values".

Objectivist epistemology would be a good place to start. Although in a technical sense there are no absolutes, insofar as they do exist, they exist in this form.

I already defined what is meant by “Objective.” What disagreement do you have with my definition? Are you claiming you have the true one?
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

[shadowhawk]

You said, "This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values. "

Is there anything, right or wrong in your belief system?

Or course there are, but those values are not "objective", or given from the outside. Morality is different in Aztec, Mongol, Native American or ancient Roman societies than it is in present day western world. The commonalities in morality between most human societies can be derived from the evolution of groups. Ask yourself, what are the moral values of a wolf, a shark, a spider, an alien being? Where are the "objective" values all these creatures share, if any?

Sharks rape each other. Wolves steal each others food, spiders canalize and kill each other and I could go on. Are you saying the behaviors are moral for humans?

Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position. http://www.longecity...270#entry635144

Ask yourself, based on your definition of morality almost nothing is wrong. The Aztecs, and Native Americans practiced cannibalism and slavery. So did the Romans. Almost no evil act we can think of is not moral in your definition. Red ants kill black ants and practice slavery as well. I won’t go on making the point. There are no moral values without God.

Evolution is not concerned with morality but survival only.
RANDOM CHANCE AND EVOLUTION DEFEATS NATURALISTIC ATHEISM.
http://www.longecity...180#entry627545

[shadowhawk]

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”

Evolution can't define morality.

[shadowhawk]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

[johnross47]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

repetition is not argument

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”

Evolution can't define morality.

repetition is not argument

[platypus]

Ask yourself, based on your definition of morality almost nothing is wrong. The Aztecs, and Native Americans practiced cannibalism and slavery. So did the Romans. Almost no evil act we can think of is not moral in your definition. Red ants kill black ants and practice slavery as well. I won’t go on making the point. There are no moral values without God.

Many things are "wrong", but that is not objective, as other people will disagree on the details on what is right or wrong in any given instant. The morality is usually defined in the culture, no gods are necessary for it.

Besides, the Christian God in particular has no morals at all, but thinks that killing and/or torturing people forever is perfectly alright. Nice

[shadowhawk]

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

repetition is not argument

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.”

Evolution can't define morality.

repetition is not argument

In order to keep the discussion on topic, for some you need to be sure what you are talking about.

[shadowhawk]

Ask yourself, based on your definition of morality almost nothing is wrong. The Aztecs, and Native Americans practiced cannibalism and slavery. So did the Romans. Almost no evil act we can think of is not moral in your definition. Red ants kill black ants and practice slavery as well. I won’t go on making the point. There are no moral values without God.

Many things are "wrong", but that is not objective, as other people will disagree on the details on what is right or wrong in any given instant. The morality is usually defined in the culture, no gods are necessary for it.

Besides, the Christian God in particular has no morals at all, but thinks that killing and/or torturing people forever is perfectly alright. Nice

When you say something negative about Christians such as this I assume this must be based on your subjective opinion which is no better than anyone else. So, you have no basis for questing anyone’s morals or calling them “wrong”. Plus, it is both a misrepresentation and ignores our current discussion.

Morality defined by the Nazi culture? No God necessary! I asked you:

“Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right. I now understand why you want to talk about something else and engage in name calling and ad homonyms..

[YOLF]

Based on the video in the first post:

Ok, I get it. But I generally call myself an agnostic because I know God exists, I just don't think his efficacy is high enough warrant his actions. Some, usually those who find him young, love Him alot. Others as the bible admits in the Gospel and the old Testament will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

My condition of faith in God, is that he must be able to prove himself through spirit (and other mechanisms as necessary) to every single kid w/o exception years before the age of 11-12. The problem is that circumstances don't always allow this and the repercussions of not figuring it out young can be unbearable as is so often proven in the media. So what does God do and what exactly does God believe? Does he believe that some children are not worth as much as others, and some not worth anything at all? God is the one in the position of guidance and sheparding and it is the loss of His favor upon those who find him young that disenfranchise those who never do or do so too late. I find the claim that God is perfect to be an unwarranted claim with much evidence to the contrary.