Seun:

There are some things in life that we just have to accept whether we like them or not. For example, that bad things often happen to good people. That death is inevitable. And that objective morality, as attractive as it may sound to those who want everything to be black and white so they don’t have to think, does not exist.

Religious morality is not objective. Christians and Muslims differ on whether is wrong to murder people for drawing cartoons, even though they worship the same God of Abraham. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics disagree on whether blood transfusions and contraceptives are good or evil. Deeper Life and Christ Embassy disagree on whether it’s a sin for women to wear trousers. Joyce Meyer believes God called her to be a pastor but other Christians believe that God doesn’t want any woman to be a Pastor.

Religious people may believe that God’s morality is objective, but since they have no objective means of figuring out what God considers to be moral or immoral in every situation - because their religious texts can be interpreted in numerous conflicting ways - the morality of religious people is also very subjective.

Objective morality is a fantasy.


Limiting people’s freedom and happiness unnecessarily is wrong because most people wouldn’t want that to be done to them. If we didn’t know whether we would be born to slaves or slave owners, we would all prefer to live in societies without slavery. Causing more harm than good, if practiced widely, leads to a shittier society. I don't want to live in a shitty society. Do you?


Adultery in most cases is wrong because adulterers break the promise of fidelity that they made to their spouses. If both spouses agree to see other people, then no promise is broken when it happens.

Prostitution is wrong when the prostitutes or their customers are married or attached and their partners haven’t agreed to let them engage in the act. If prostitutes and their customers are single or in open relationships, and they use condoms to slow the spread of sexual diseases, what’s the problem?

Reasoning about morality is quite easy once you drop the authoritarian model of morality where things are classified as right or wrong because “God said so”. Freethinkers come to the same conclusions on moral issues far more often than you would expect. Without the divisive influence of religion (and politics), it’s actually much easier to come to agreement on moral issues. We are all human beings, after all. It’s amazing.

like Chioma is not likely to go mad if she heard that Davido sleep or romances another lady in a musical video

MuttleyLaff:
Yeah, because I can smell your motive from miles away mate.

I dunno why you like dribbling your shadow.

That's exactly what Paul was going about doing when he was Saul

Guess what, the word "religion" has changed its meaning from what is originally was, being about benevolence, thoughtful consideration and generosity for other people in need

Having compassion makes you or lets you become less prejudiced, less extreme, less intense or violent to want to antagonise or fight wars with another

Yup, compassion cuts right through Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, New Age etcetera

Watch this, do you ever ask about someone's belief or unbelief first before offering or extending your compassion to them, especially when in time of need?

If anyone wants to do religion, then compassion, is the religion, on record, deemed pure and faultless by God

Whatever the front, however it is painted and how you've just described religion to be,
the truth and fact is, what is fronted as pure and faultless religion in today's world, isnt it.

Religion, that is pure and faultless, is about, not, how regular one prays, is not about regular congregated attendance.
Religion, that is pure and faultless, is not, about wearing hijab or burka

Before what the world has become today, a priest & levite (i.e. "church" worker) had been known to slip up on what pure and faultless religion is

Anything less than practising, pure and faultless religion, is not true and so thereby is false religion.
If it's not compassion centric it is false impure and faulty religion

So if an atheist shows compassion he is doing pure and faultless religion?

Blakjewelry:

the truth is I was once in your shoes though I won't say I felt hatred for those who don't believe in the Christian God

fast forward to many years later in my search for knowledge, I begin to question all and that is something not allowed as a religious person. reading through history I discovered Egypt and mesopotamia has similar but different account of the creation story one they are both older, and while those try to explain how the gods came into existence, the newer version which is Judaism skip that part.

now even the book of Genesis seems to be a lift off from other books such as the book of Adam and eve and the book of Enoch. now before you will be quick to write off those book, do you know some of new testament writers made some quote off those book?

take for instance. story of the fallen angels and maybe you might have heard some pastors mentioned how the angels were made from flame. these are found in those book, now the question I like you to answer is why are they not included in the bible and Koran.

Hence, no version of religion can be trusted.

LordReed:
I dunno why you like dribbling your shadow.

Bwahahahaha ha.
He is talking about himself. Kikikiki ki.

LordReed:
So if an atheist shows compassion he is doing pure and faultless religion?

Bingo!
Wow, hes finally got it

MuttleyLaff:

Bingo!
Wow, hes finally got it

As I see it, this completely negates the need to plead allegiance to any god or faith institution.

LordReed:


All you are doing is attempting to give a dog a bad name so you can hang it. The fact that a society reaches an unreasonable conclusion on a particular topic of morality does not negate the fact that all morality is indeed subjective. Clearly human history shows that societies attempt to reason themselves into a state that promotes the good of the society, sometimes that reasoning fails and you get a Hitler and Germany in WWII or sometimes it succeeds and you get a United States of America.

You can please show me a society that has not at some point modified it's moral code.

Not sure if you responded to my post by accident since I never argued against morality being subjective in that post. I merely stated what cultural relativism is.

tintingz:
It's still generalization

I don’t subscribed to this ethical view, atheists do so it’s their problem it their position is fallacious.

This is still fallacy.

How is what I said there a fallacious?

He's right, society determine morality but shouldn't totally control your morality.

Remember I used the word "totally".

E.g because Homosexuality is frowned at in Nigeria and are even jail doesn't mean it's moral to me, I find it Immoral to criminalize people because of thier sexual orientation.

Then your belief that homosexuality is not immoral is just incorrect according to relativism for it’s not in accordance to your society which you said determines morality.

So what's the difference in disagreeing in something and holding subjective view about something?

Are you being dishonest or what?

I gave you an example illustrating why your argument doesn’t followed. You said religious morality is subjective because different religions hold different beliefs about morality. If mere differences or disagreement suggest that the issue at hand is one of subjective opinion then it would also follow that our belief about the earth being spherical is an subjective opinion and not an objective fact for there are flat earthers who disagree with us. Therefore if you want to jump from “what's moral in this religion might be immoral in another religion. “ to therefore religious morality is subjective, then you should also give up on your belief that it is an objective fact that this planet is not flat. For It follows
the same line of reasoning you used to reach your conclusion on morality.

Wrong, subjective or relative morality is not fallacious but reality.

If what I said below is fallacious then moral relativism is fallacious for according to it what I post here is true:

rekinomtla:

If he is from a society that approves of hating atheists, then yes according to moral relativism it is perfect moral for him to hate atheists.

tintingz:
Look around, are you seeing people having same morality?

Objectivity doesn’t require everyone's agreement as I showed earlier. If it did then not even science is objective for not everyone holds the same scientific views or beliefs. It just doesn’t follow.

Because a society approve a moral doesn't mean I should take it, I'm not a robot, gullible nor stupid.

Why do people protest? Why do we have gay activists, animal activists, women activists and so on?

I merely stated what is moral, not what you should do. If society determines what is moral and you disagree then it means your belief is incorrect or in error for it’s the society and not you who determines what is moral. This is all according to cultural relativism of course.

rekinomtla:


Not sure if you responded to my post by accident since I never argued against morality being subjective in that post. I merely stated what cultural relativism is.

Point is, you are trying to say if moral relativity produces a bad idea then it is rubbish and needs to be thrown out. This is the theme of your arguments.

rekinomtla:


I don’t subscribed to this ethical view, atheists do so it’s their problem it their position is fallacious.

Lol, who made the statement "he hates Atheists" just because he believed "every" athiests are evil, dangerous, lack empathy?

Is he not attacking fallacy? Fallacy of generalizing (faulty generalization)?

What proof does he have that ALL athiests are evil and dangerous?

I gave you example why he's attacking fallacy, yet you don't grasp.

How is what I said there a fallacious?

The fact that you agree athiests have no book they are guided by, every other thing you make are assumptions and if you insist it's a fact then you're attacking fallacy!

Then your belief that homosexuality is not immoral is just incorrect according to relativism for it’s not in accordance to your society which you said determines morality.

Sigh, my believe in Homosexuality being criminalize is Immoral, I'm not stupid following every tom and dîck the society said.

There are good and kind homos, so why criminalizing them because of thier sexual orientation? What causes people to be gay? Is there any cure? These are the things people should find out instead of criminalizing them.

The fact that we have activists shows the society doesn't totally control our morality, the society give laws, laws are adjusted hope you know that?

I gave you an example illustrating why your argument doesn’t followed. You said religious morality is subjective because different religions hold different beliefs about morality. If mere differences or disagreement suggest that the issue at hand is one of subjective opinion then it would also follow that our belief about the earth being spherical is an subjective opinion and not an objective fact for there are flat earthers who disagree with us. Therefore if you want to jump from “what's moral in this religion might be immoral in another religion. “ to therefore religious morality is subjective, then you should also give up on your belief that it is an objective fact that this planet is not flat. For It follows
the same line of reasoning you used to reach your conclusion on morality.

Do Buddhist find stoning adulterers to death moral, do christians find Polygamy moral? Or why are Shia and Sunni killing themselves because they share different stannce?

There's already a professional scientific consensus that the earth is spherical with evidences, the flat Earth model is a conspiracy theory that is discarded in the scientific community.

There are some subject that are objective, they are fact that can't be denied, unless such person is being dishonest or delusional.

If what I said below is fallacious then moral relativism is fallacious for according to it what I post here is true:

Hating athiests may be moral to him, that's his business, but I just showed you how it's unreasonable and fallacious to express it(both him and his society).

Ok, let's assume the OP is right by saying all athiests are wicked, dangerous and he hates them due to ignorance or so, but he later discovered there are good, kind athiests that contributed to the well being of his society and even some of his relatives are athiests, then one day the government of his society decided the nuke athiests community with nuclear bomb, is this a moral and reasonable thing to do?

Objectivity doesn’t require everyone's agreement as I showed earlier. If it did then not even science is objective for not everyone holds the same scientific views or beliefs. It just doesn’t follow.

There's scientific consensus in Science where a subject is widely agreed by almost all Scientists, although opposition is still very well allowed and if the research is found professional it will be accepted and adjusted and if found unprofessional it will be discarded.

Yes Objectivity doesn't require everyone agreeing to a thing but there are things we just need or be forced to come together and be objective about it, reason we have consensus organizations like UN and co.

I merely stated what is moral, not what you should do. If society determines what is moral and you disagree then it means your belief is incorrect or in error for it’s the society and not you who determines what is moral. This is all according to cultural relativism of course.

You're talking as if society is some kind of an entity on it own. The people are the society, we evolve and adjust our morality, laws.

Recently, Saudi approved women driving, was that accepted before? India just legalized homosexuals relationship, was that accepted before?

Why are these laws adjusted or change?

frank317:

I actually thought u were serious... Smh

war will end if ur God simply appears to the whole world for one day and tell us the right way to worship him instead of sitting in heaven like Humpty Dumpty watching boko haram slaughter people in his name or watch jehover witness accuse other Christians of worshiping him wrongly or watch Christians drawing cartoons of pedophilic Mohammed which in turn results to killings in the north.

Has seun ever even insulted u or call u names? Why do u think he is the cause of any war? Are u OK?


Which way of life did religion preach? Segregation? Remember "do not be equally yolked with the world?" Is it the religion that asked u to hate atheists that will stop war? When people hate other people... War starts. U are already at war with atheists who have done nothing wrong to u

LordReed:


Men and their greed cause war. Religion we are told will cause men to no longer follow their baser instincts so the question is where is this moderation? In the bible we are told of Israel's wars to conquer Canaan driven by their belief that God told them to exterminate all who would not bow the knee to God. Leaving the middle east for a moment, Constantine the Emperor who adopted Christianity as the Roman empire state religion, said he received a vision while on the battlefield from Christ, telling him to conquer in his name. The Holy Roman Empire established some time after Constantine was involved in at least 22 wars. There is no record of religion moderating the thirst for war on the other hand we have distinct examples of people fighting wars in the name of religion.

God is not responsible for what the Rulers of the world do or may not do, even with his name.

Anybody can claim God told them to fight for him.

Heck Boko Haram is doing so as we speak.

Wat religion actually does is moderate the calamity via its doctrine of mercy.

This is the restraint that have held mankind back from annihilation.

LordReed:
I dunno why you like dribbling your shadow.

So if an atheist shows compassion he is doing pure and faultless religion?

MuttleyLaff:
Bwahahahaha ha.
He is talking about himself. Kikikiki ki.

Bingo!
Wow, hes finally got it

LordReed:
As I see it, this completely negates the need to plead allegiance to any god or faith institution.

You're free to do or not do whatever you like

Besides, no one is advised to, no expects anyone to, plead allegiance to any god or faith institution

All I'll will say, is, when push comes to shove, you might review, what and how you earlier have, "As I see it..."

hammer6F:





God is not responsible for what the Rulers of the world do or may not do, even with his name.

Anybody can claim God told them to fight for him.

Heck Boko Haram is doing so as we speak.

Wat religion actually does is moderate the calamity via its doctrine of mercy.

This is the restraint that have held mankind back from annihilation.

You are very funny. What mercy did the Israelites show to the Canaanites? What mercy did Elijah show to the priests of Baal? Are you now telling me the Israelites were pretending that God sent them? Was Elijah acting for himself? Doctrine of mercy indeed.

LordReed:


You are very funny. What mercy did the Israelites show to the Canaanites? What mercy did Elijah show to the priests of Baal? Are you now telling me the Israelites were pretending that God sent them? Was Elijah acting for himself? Doctrine of mercy indeed.

Did the Israelites wipe out the Canaanites?

No they did not.

That is mercy.

Did the Israelites wipe out the Palestines?

No, that is mercy.

The mercy would not be possible without religion.

LordReed, can u try this with your Nigeria Army?

Yet, here is a Palestinian girl beating the shit out of a well Armed Isreali soldier.

That is the power of religion and the mercy that it preach.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53j3QljclE

MuttleyLaff:




You're free to do or not do whatever you like

Besides, no one is advised to, no expects anyone to, plead allegiance to any god or faith institution

All I'll will say, is, when push comes to shove, you might review, what and how you earlier have, "As I see it..."

LoL! It is so obvious when you have driven yourself to a wall. Dude as I said, don't be making claims you cannot support, this is where it always ends. You, back against a wall, shouting "You will see!" LoLz.

tintingz:
Lol, who made the statement "he hates Atheists" just because he believed "every" athiests are evil, dangerous, lack empathy?

Is he not attacking fallacy? Fallacy of generalizing (faulty generalization)?

What proof does he have that ALL athiests are evil and dangerous?

I gave you example why he's attacking fallacy, yet you don't grasp.

We seem to have been talking past each other then since I never argued for or against the op beliefs regarding atheists. I only contested the atheist claim that he was immoral for hating atheists. For if he was from a society that approves of hating atheists then according to moral relativism he wasn’t being immoral.

The fact that you agree athiests have no book they are guided by, every other thing you make are assumptions and if you insist it's a fact then you're attacking fallacy!

You don’t need a book filled with doctrines to deduced ideas from a ideology or worldview, atheism like any other worldview has implications.

Sigh, my believe in Homosexuality being criminalize is Immoral, I'm not stupid following every tom and dîck the society said.

There are good and kind homos, so why criminalizing them because of thier sexual orientation? What causes people to be gay? Is there any cure? These are the things people should find out instead of criminalizing them.

The fact that we have activists shows the society doesn't totally control our morality, the society give laws, laws are adjusted hope you know that?

Lol Then you no cultural relativist. Cultural moral relativism is the view that a society or culture determines what is right and wrong in that culture. So homosexuality is wrong in Nigeria but right in USA. You can’t claim society determines what is moral and immoral then later contradict that by saying your society is morally incorrect on some issues.

Do Buddhist find stoning adulterers to death moral, do christians find Polygamy moral? Or why are Shia and Sunni killing themselves because they share different stannce?

There's already a professional scientific consensus that the earth is spherical with evidences, the flat Earth model is a conspiracy theory that is discarded in the scientific community.

There are some subject that are objective, they are fact that can't be denied, unless such person is being dishonest or delusional.

So your argument is flawed. It doesn’t follow that just because religions have different views of morality that therefore religious morality is subjective. The fact that you said the earth being spherical is an objective truth shows that it’s possible to something can be objective even though there’s disagreement.

Hating athiests may be moral to him, that's his business, but I just showed you how it's unreasonable and fallacious to express it(both him and his society).

Ok, let's assume the OP is right by saying all athiests are wicked, dangerous and he hates them due to ignorance or so, but he later discovered there are good, kind athiests that contributed to the well being of his society and even some of his relatives are athiests, then one day the government of his society decided the nuke athiests community with nuclear bomb, is this a moral and reasonable thing to do?

Im not talking about the op specifically, I questioning the atheist claim that it’s immoral to hate atheists when they in fact believe in moral relativism. According to relativism if the op was from a society that approved of hating atheists then its perfectly fine and even moral in fact The bold is my main point.

There's scientific consensus in Science where a subject is widely agreed by almost all Scientists, although opposition is still very well allowed and if the research is found professional it will be accepted and adjusted and if found unprofessional it will be discarded.

Yes Objectivity doesn't require everyone agreeing to a thing but there are things we just need or be forced to come together and be objective about it, reason we have consensus organizations like UN and co.

So your earlier arguments are flawed. You came to the conclusion that religious morality is subjective because there’s different religions which have different moral beliefs. In addition you implied that if morality was objective, people will have the same morality.

you're talking as if society is some kind of an entity on it own. The people are the society, we evolve and adjust our morality, laws.

Recently, Saudi approved women driving, was that accepted before? India just legalized homosexuals relationship, was that accepted before?

Why are these laws adjusted or change?

I don’t claim that societies determines morality, you do. You need to ask yourself why societies change their stance of morals. As for me I don’t believe that a society determines what is right and wrong, if a society decided to legalized racism and slavery tomorrow I wouldn’t believe that slavery or racism is therefore moral in that society. If however, you are a cultural moral relativist then you are in fact required to believe that because that is actually what CMR is.

hammer6F:


Did the Israelites wip out the Canaanites?

No they did not.

That is mercy.

Did the Israelites wipe out the Palestines?

No that is mercy.

The mercy would not be possible without religion.

LoL, you are so obviously grasping straws. The only reason the Palestinians were not wiped out was because their "national" alliance was strong. The Canaanites on the other hand were wiped out because they operated as city states.

hammer6F:
LordReed, can u try this with your Nigeria Army?

Yet, here is a Palestinian girl beating the shit out of a well Armed Isreali soldier.

That is the power of religion and the mercy that it preach.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53j3QljclE

Hahahahaha, it's that same mercy that caused Israeli snipers to kill a medic who was helping Palestinians right? The same mercy that caused them to kill an unarmed man? LoL your definition of mercy is very strange.

LordReed:


LoL, you are so obviously grasping straws. The only reason the Palestinians were not wiped out was because their "national" alliance was strong. The Canaanites on the other hand were wiped out because they operated as city states.



Hahahahaha, it's that same mercy that caused Israeli snipers to kill a medic who was helping Palestinians right? The same mercy that caused them to kill an unarmed man? LoL your definition of mercy is very strange.

Wrong, the Canaanites were not wiped out but rather taken into captivity as slaves.



Joshua 17:12–13 notes, “The Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.” Why didn’t the Israelites completely destroy the Canaanites as God had commanded?


Judges 1:27–33 also describes the failure of the Israelites to complete the conquest of the land through removing the Canaanites. Verses 27–28 states, “Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.”

hammer6F:



Wrong, the Canaanites were not wiped out but rather taken into captivity as slaves.



Joshua 17:12–13 notes, “The Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.” Why didn’t the Israelites completely destroy the Canaanites as God had commanded?


Judges 1:27–33 also describes the failure of the Israelites to complete the conquest of the land through removing the Canaanites. Verses 27–28 states, “Manasseh did not drive out the people of Beth Shan or Taanach or Dor or Ibleam or Megiddo and their surrounding settlements, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that land. When Israel became strong, they pressed the Canaanites into forced labor but never drove them out completely.”

LoL, you said God asked them to wipe out the Canaanites out and you are still asking me question? Jeez the cognitive dissonance is high.

BTW what happened to the Canaanites why is their name wiped off the face of the map?

LordReed:



LoL, you said God asked them to wipe out the Canaanites out and you are still asking me question? Jeez the cognitive dissonance is high.

BTW what happened to the Canaanites why is their name wiped off the face of the map?

Wat happened to the Israelites prior to 1945?

Y was their name wiped off the face of the map before 1945?

hammer6F:


Wat happened to the Israelites prior to 1945?

Y was their name wiped off the face of the map before 1945?

Huh? This is deflection. What happened to the Canaanites is very clear, they no longer exist. Feel free to show me evidence to the contrary.

LordReed:


Huh? This is deflection. What happened to the Canaanites is very clear, they no longer exist. Feel free to show me evidence to the contrary.

The oldest trick in the book is to take one line from the bible that suits your claim and forget the rest.

The same story from which u quote, clearly states that the Israelites did not wipe the canaanites out.

They left then on their land but enslaved dem.

hammer6F:


The oldest trick in the book is to take one line from the bible that suits your claim and forget the rest.

The same story from which u quote, clearly states that the Israelites did not wipe the canaanites out.

They left then on their land but enslaved dem.

It's very simple this man. Show me where the Canaanites exist today.

LordReed:
LoL! It is so obvious when you have driven yourself to a wall.
Dude as I said, don't be making claims you cannot support, this is where it always ends.
You, back against a wall, shouting "You will see!" LoLz.

Sekem sekem! Sekem, sekem, sekem!!
If only you have relevant understanding

Why cant you, for once, face up to the truth?
Is it not true, that you have a choice?
Are you being forced, against your will, to do something and/or at all do anything?

OK, for the sake of argument, I am driven with my back against a wall.
Seems you arent well acquainted with rope-a-dope.
Watch out, you'll get caught off guard and/or by surprise

MuttleyLaff:
Sekem sekem! Sekem, sekem, sekem!!
If only you have relevant understanding

Why cant you, for once, face up to the truth?
Is it not true, that you have a choice?
Are you being forced, against your will, to do something and/or at all do anything?

OK, for the sake of argument, I am driven with my back against a wall.
Seems you arent well acquainted with rope-a-dope.
Watch out, you'll get caught off guard and/or by surprise

What truth am I not facing up to? Where have I ever said I don't have a choice or that I am being forced?

LordReed:
What truth am I not facing up to?
Where have I ever said I don't have a choice or that I am being forced?

So you accept and agree that you're free to do or not do whatever you like?


I will tell but after you've gone first, to tell where I have ever shouted "You will see!"
and you list the alleged claims I've made that I cant support

MuttleyLaff:
So you accept and agree that you're free to do or not do whatever you like?


I will tell but after you've gone first, to tell where I have ever shouted "You will see!"
and you list the alleged claims I've made that I cant support

Why must I explain every detail like you are 2? It's boring you know. I have a 3yr old here I can easily go and converse with.

LordReed:
Why must I explain every detail like you are 2? It's boring you know.
I have a 3yr old here I can easily go and converse with.

It is Albert Einstein who famously said:
"“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”"

You're either inadequate, you're scared, you dont understand yourself or you're all of them.
I have not asked you to explain every detail like I am 2.
Even if I have or I am, what you afraid of?

I remember the last time I was with a 2 year old. It was marvel and fun galore
The intensely inquisitive, open and enquiring mind blew me away

I can relate, after Jesus, in Luke 18:16 and/or Matthew 19:14, saying:
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God"

rekinomtla:


We seem to have been talking past each other then since I never argued for or against the op beliefs regarding atheists. I only contested the atheist claim that he was immoral for hating atheists. For if he was from a society that approves of hating atheists then according to moral relativism he wasn’t being immoral.

What prompted the OP hatred towards atheists is because he believe ALL athiests are evil, wicked and dangerous.

Again, this is fallacy in OP's premise and for you to bring up relativism to support his claims makes it more fallacious and ureasonable.

You don’t need a book filled with doctrines to deduced ideas from a ideology or worldview, atheism like any other worldview has implications.

For the fact that you can't provide evidence for your claims, how you came about your fact about ALL athiests ideology is fallacy!

Lol Then you no cultural relativist. Cultural moral relativism is the view that a society or culture determines what is right and wrong in that culture. So homosexuality is wrong in Nigeria but right in USA. You can’t claim society determines what is moral and immoral then later contradict that by saying your society is morally incorrect on some issues.

Sigh, why do we have opponents In the society?

So your argument is flawed. It doesn’t follow that just because religions have different views of morality that therefore religious morality is subjective.

Is religious morality objective or subjective? Let's hear your part.

The fact that you said the earth being spherical is an objective truth shows that it’s possible to something can be objective even though there’s disagreement.

Did you read my previous post?

Go back and read what I said about scientific consensus and Objectivity.

Im not talking about the op specifically, I questioning the atheist claim that it’s immoral to hate atheists when they in fact believe in moral relativism. According to relativism if the op was from a society that approved of hating atheists then its perfectly fine and even moral in fact The bold is my main point.

You're still attacking fallacy, where is the fact of this athiests belief about moral relativism? Is there an athiestic book that you conclude this your fact from?

The OP premise is that ALL athiests are wicked, evil and dangerous, they lack empathy therefore he hate athiests, again how or where did the OP get this information/stats from that ALL athiests are dangerous and wicked?

Go back and read the OP's premise before you keep pulling more strawman.

So your earlier arguments are flawed. You came to the conclusion that religious morality is subjective because there’s different religions which have different moral beliefs. In addition you implied that if morality was objective, people will have the same morality.

Humans are not perfect, we also evolve, so it's likely not possible for morality to be objective, let's get that straight.

But if we assume morality is objective, yes we should all have same morality with God's magical power.

I don’t claim that societies determines morality, you do. You need to ask yourself why societies change their stance of morals. As for me I don’t believe that a society determines what is right and wrong, if a society decided to legalized racism and slavery tomorrow I wouldn’t believe that slavery or racism is therefore moral in that society. If however, you are a cultural moral relativist then you are in fact required to believe that because that is actually what CMR is.

Sigh,

You have your morality, society have it own morality, the latter is superior than your morality.

E.g, if you believe bombing third mainland bridge is moral to you, you can imagine that in your head, its not anyone's business, but if you come out to express it publicly, then the law will take that up and if you feel the law is been unjust to you then you can protest you want to bomb the bridge.

If everyone express thier subjective morality publicly and no laws, how will that society be?

rekinomtla:

I merely stated what is moral, not what you should do. If society determines what is moral and you disagree then it means your belief is incorrect or in error for it’s the society and not you who determines what is moral. This is all according to cultural relativism of course.

Then what you "merely stated" is very wrong sir!

Consider the following:

A particular 'society' considered slavery was moral, yet some people in that society disagreed and fought against 'society' and 'society' changed its mind.

A 'society' considered the sacrifice of twins was moral, so they took twins to the bottom of the river and bashed their heads against a rock. Some people in the society disagreed and fought against it and the idea was eventually considered to be immoral and unacceptable.

No one would today consider that the fighters in these two examples agreed that their "belief is incorrect", nor did they allow society to be the determinant of their morals or the ethical behaviour their society should adopt. It is therefore not society that determines morality, but the individuals in the society.

Can't say I get what you mean by "cultural relativism"' mind, apart from it meaning a "person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture". But 'understand', in no way implies morally or ethically acceptable. I may understand why some would like to enslave others or bash the heads of twins on a rock at the bottom of a river, but both acts are still immoral and ethically unacceptable.

rekinomtla:
Cultural moral relativism is the view that a society or culture determines what is right and wrong in that culture.


I don’t claim that societies determines morality, you do.

So, you hold that "cultural relativism determines societies morals", is incorrect and opposed to reality, right?