Off With Their Heads...

[rogue06]

That is not physically possible for me to do.

And now you're blaming poor old Jake?

[Sparko]

Ok. So morality need not have anything to do with god, correct? You can come to that conclusion based simply on your own logical reasoning, correct?

Sure as Nazism is an example. They thought ridding the world of Jews was a moral good. Societies can come up with various moral standards, sometime wrongly. But if there is God, then there is an absolute standard of morality. You asked me if I would still find having sex with infants immoral if God didn't exist. I would. I can't answer for Nazis or these Africans though.

No, I didn't indicate that, I simply asked how do you guys "know" that rape of an infant is immoral, or in other words did you come to that conclusion, that knowledge, by use of reason and logic with respect to the act itself? Your answer seems to be yes which is an admission that morality is simply a matter of what you believe to be reasonable, but not necessarily a fundamental"fact" or a "divine law".

You suggested that raping infants is not always wrong. So give an example of when it isn't.

Well, again, that's just your opinion, not necessarily a fact. It's like the notion of morality itself, you believe it to be a fundamental reality, to be a law unto itself, but that's only your opinion, not necessarily a truth that you "know" to be true

And you don't, and that is your opinion. What makes your opinion more true than mine?

And you're basis for that conclusion is what?

CP mode/"your"/CP Mode.

Because I find it morally repugnant to have sex with infants. Why do you find it immoral?

[JimL]

Sure as Nazism is an example. They thought ridding the world of Jews was a moral good. Societies can come up with various moral standards, sometime wrongly. But if there is God, then there is an absolute standard of morality. You asked me if I would still find having sex with infants immoral if God didn't exist. I would. I can't answer for Nazis or these Africans though.

So when you, CP, et.al. say that you "know" rape is immoral, then that knowledge you profess to having need not have anything to do with god existing or gods moral nature being an absolute standard.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that good and evil would still exist even if there is no god and that you can assert to "knowing" what is good and what is evil even if there is no god? Correct?

You suggested that raping infants is not always wrong. So give an example of when it isn't.

Well no, I never suggested that raping an infant is not always wrong. What I'm questioning is what the determining factor is that you use to conclude what is right and what is wrong, or in this specific case based on what factors are you able to claim to "know" that rape of an infant is always wrong.

And you don't, and that is your opinion.

Please don't put words in my mouth Sparko. My opinion as to whether rape of an infant is immoral or not is the same as yours and I would assume the same as most everyone's.

What makes your opinion more true than mine?

Well, first off as stated above our opinions on the matter are the same, we both maintain rape of an infant to be immoral. The difference being is that you, CP et.al. claim that what is immoral isn't based on human opinion, that it's just a fact which they just "know" to be a fact.

Because I find it morally repugnant to have sex with infants. Why do you find it immoral?

I'm sure most everyone would say the same. But the question remains. Is the fact that you find it morally repugnant the basis of it's being immoral? Is that what makes it immoral, the fact that you find it to be repugnant?