None of this is unfair or illogical.
Punishing another for not following your own personal moral code is unfair.
Remember we are talking about morals not logic.
Moral application should be logical.
We need rules. I would use that as a justification.
But why your rules? You have no justification.
Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality
You pointed out a fringe example not the norm.
That is my point, your morality works only for the typical, the majority. A better morality would work for everyone.
I have no problem with that until they harm other people which I would have a problem.
Even harm is judged differently by different people. What happens when you think its harmful and the other person disagrees?
That my confused friend, is fascism.
Fascism is forcing others to live by your rules.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes.
This is a morality. It doesn't have to be objective to be a moral standard.
I said nothing about objectivity. There is a difference between your tastes and a moral system. If your moral system is your tastes, why should anybody other than you be expected to follow it? Why would you punish the pedophile who didn't follow it? How is he worthy of punishment for not doing what you liked?
When people are expressing there 2nd amendment right to kill people. It becomes fascism. Do tell me how I am wrong.
The second amendment has nothing to do with killing people, or what we are debating here.
Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.
Neither does your moral system.
Hold on. Did you just concede my point? Am I right? If not, please say where.
Not once have you told me how your moral standard is objective nor have you attempted to do so.
Because right now I am not talking about my moral system, I'm talking about yours.
As far as I am concerned you are in no position to condemn someone else if I go by your standards.
That sounds to me like a concession. We can discuss my morality if you want, but please let us settle this point first. Am I right about your morality?
And is your defense that no morality has the right to judge or condemn any other morality?
If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?
I don't believe in rights as in things given to you by God. Do change what you said.
No, I will not. I said nothing about God. I'm asking you why do you think you have the right to sentence him? If you do not believe in rights, that is even worse, because you don't even think you need a right to sentence him.
Basically you're telling me you will simply do what you like to others based simply on your tastes.
I see no difference between how the constitution was written.
Then you contradict yourself again. Hitler cause enormous pain and suffering to millions. If your moral system seeks to avoid suffering, how can it see no difference between what hitler did and a document intended to protect people from harm? Do you think Hitler was justified in attacking other countries?
If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.
Your moral standard doesn't ensure this would be any different.
Yes it would. My moral system does not see suffering as the greatest evil and knows not all pleasure is moral.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code.
How am I abandoning my moral code again?
Fighting Hitler would cause the greatest harm to the most people.
I did state I would fight but if I knew how to fight. Surrendering seems like a less happy position.
Less happy than world war? Really?
Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard.
This has nothing to do with video games. You may not know what a moral standard is.
You have no justification in reality for this.
Sure I do. The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday. If God is creator, He cannot be part of creation. I am saying this is logical. We can debate whether it is true after.
Nothing has the same standard that you apply to God.
Of course, nothing is God.
Meaning you have a double standard and I don't think it is justified.
I have different standards for different things, and so do you. For example, I have a different standard for cows than I do for people, and a different standard for children than I do for adults. This is especially true for moral standards.
So your wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical, and not something even you do. It is spurious.
What are you using science?
For some of it. For some, logic.
I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.
You can't prove this.
Sure I can. There is not a single other work of literature before A.D. era that contains the concepts found in the bible.
Islam disagrees
Empirical facts prove Islam wrong. The Koran even validated the bible.
looking the populations between the two, Islam is increasing while Christianity is decreasing.
Not only is this untrue, it would not counter my claims even if it was true.
What do you have to say about Islam?
Nothing. I'm not talking about Islam, and I have no reason to. I'm blowing holes in your nihilist worldview, which is why you want to pivot to Islam.
