Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[olavisjo]

.

Do you have any other reason for saying what they did was wrong besides "I don't like what they did therefore it was wrong?"

I am not saying...

• "I don't like what they did therefore it was wrong?"

I am saying...

• "I know what they did was wrong?"

[Artie]

.

Do you have any other reason for saying what they did was wrong besides "I don't like what they did therefore it was wrong?"

I am not saying...

• "I don't like what they did therefore it was wrong?"

I am saying...

• "I know what they did was wrong?"

How do you know? What independent neutral objective source are you using as your reference? Suppose you and a friend argue about the spelling of a word. You go to a dictionary and then you both know what's the right spelling. What is your equivalent of a dictionary telling you that what they did was wrong?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to whisperit]

Evolution of the weak and sneaky. Showing that intelligence can be used to survive, thrive and even breed without the usual reason to do so.

Take for example a physically pathetic professor of evolution in the standard materialist academic setting. I've never met even one that could fight their way our of a paper sack. Yet, they are doing well financially EXTREMELY WELL financially and many have had a mate and offspring.

There is footage of a smaller and weaker male bug watching two, more powerful, bugs battling out the supremacy for the "right" to mate with a female bug standing by waiting for the superior victor to emerge. While the two good examples of bug
fight for their darwinian prize, the weaker and sneaker male bug creeps in, rapes the female bug and scoots away stealing the genetic prize of the more powerful winner of the dominance fight, who now must mate with his lady bug in futility.

There is no "right and wrong" without God. Laws are instituted by the fearful or powerful for survival of the fittest by any means necessary.

Just behaviors and actions debated by males and females in a circle of life winding down to the inevitable extinction of mankind either sooner or later.

[olavisjo]

.

How do you know? What independent neutral objective source are you using as your reference?

The source of all the independent neutral objective evidence that you need was presented here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 588#606588

If that is not enough for you then you have found the 'fatal' flaw in my argument. Congratulations, you win.

[99percentatheism]

.

How do you know? What independent neutral objective source are you using as your reference?

The source of all the independent neutral objective evidence that you need was presented here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 588#606588

If that is not enough for you then you have found the 'fatal' flaw in my argument. Congratulations, you win.

The Nazi's either employed a Darwinian method towards weaker individuals of the species and are "guilty" of absolutely nothing but failing to win the world war, or they are "evil monsters" based on the right and wrong God instilled in His creation.

Period.

[Artie]

Then would it be your position, that there is no actual matter of fact right or wrong? In other words, the Holocaust was not necessarily wrong.

You are a little dictator aren't you, claiming that because you know something is wrong it is wrong and everybody should know the exact same thing you know. What would you do with people who know something different from what you know?

[olavisjo]

.

You are a little dictator aren't you, claiming that because you know something is wrong it is wrong and everybody should know the exact same thing you know. What would you do with people who know something different from what you know?

Do you really need me or someone else to tell you that the Holocaust was wrong?

[10CC]

.

How do you know? What independent neutral objective source are you using as your reference?

The source of all the independent neutral objective evidence that you need was presented here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 588#606588

If that is not enough for you then you have found the 'fatal' flaw in my argument. Congratulations, you win.

The Nazi's either employed a Darwinian method towards weaker individuals of the species and are "guilty" of absolutely nothing but failing to win the world war, or they are "evil monsters" based on the right and wrong God instilled in His creation.

Period.

Did those Jews who didn't acknowledge jesus as their saviour go to heaven, or did your ever loving god sentence them to eternal torture?

Who is more evil the nazi's for killing them or your god for torturing them for eternity?

[Bust Nak]

Is this wrong only because of the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody? Or is it actually wrong? Or don't you know if it is actually wrong?

Simple. It is actually wrong because of my (a moral agent's) opinion.

[99percentatheism]

Is this wrong only because of the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody? Or is it actually wrong? Or don't you know if it is actually wrong?

Simple. It is actually wrong because of my (a moral agent's) opinion.

Countered by someone that views it as completely fine for no reason other than they do not want to be on the wrong end of evolution's struggle for life.

It is far from simple B-N.