Locke

That's true, but that doesn't stop absolute statements being consistent with my reality. If I said "I'm standing still," that is an absolute statement which is true for "my reality." I don't give a toss what you think, if it's consistent or inconsistent with your reality; that isn't the point of an absolute statement. If someone is not moving with respect to myself, then the statement is also consistent, if not then it's not consistent. This isn't perspective, this is physical relativity. Absolute statements are never true or false, they are only consistent or inconsistent with respect to a reality; it doesn't make absolute statements any less valid. I don't understand why you find this so hard to grasp. I understand what you're saying, but you keep contradicting yourself. If absolute statements can only be consistent with your reality, then when you say "we have a way to access the beginning of the universe" and "we don't have a way to access before the universe" you are making statements about multiple people's realities. Also, if absolute statements are only consistent with reality, and only the person who makes the statement's reality is consistent with that statement, why would you ever read someone else's scientific findings? Those findings would only be consistent with their reality, not yours, and not anyone else you are trying to explain science to. Even further, Ambassador's points could never be wrong about what he believes is scientific because his reality is different and there's no way for you to know what his reality is like.

The idea that love being the greatest commandment doesn't come from the 10 Commandments, it's from the New Testament.

After all this and you still haven't read them. Shame.

Sure. And as for this part... I didn't say you were trying to disprove the Christian religion. So I guess you can quit saying that (or I guess you already did, since it was the last time).

If you don't even have a fair idea of what the 10 Commands say, you don't have enough knowledge to argue about Christianity. If you read the post I was responding to, you'd be familiar with what I was talking specifically about.

Your post is only relevant if you leave out the part about "Not discussing Christianity and the Bible." Of course he shouldn't be expected to have read the Ten Commandments for no reason, but if he is going to try and discuss Christianity or the Bible at all, he needs to be familiar with those. That would be like me trying to discuss evolution and not knowing what the difference between "gender" and "species" were. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But it's useless if you don't have any knowledge to back your opinion up. Think of how ridiculous it would sound if I posted on a thread about the beginning of the Universe and my theory on how it began if I wasn't even familiar with current scientific theory.

Double negative FTL. The ten commandments don't rule over everyone whether you like it or not. So sorry, thread stays open. I don't think you should be allowed to post on any thread regarding Christianity or the Bible anymore. You haven't even read the Ten Commandments...

You all are missing the point entirely. Let me try and explain this better. 1. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of us having discovered it. 2. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of us believing it. 3. Iff absolute morality exists, it exists independently of anyone being able to prove it exists. Example: Let's say God created the world and he is the decider of morality. What he says is moral, is absolute, and it is not up for us silly humans to argue. Then, God says "Murder is absolutely immoral." Down on Earth, God tells Joe that murder is immoral. Joe immediately understands and believes (because hey, if God tells you something, you're not going to argue) and decides to tell his neighbor Bob that murder is immoral. When Bob hears this, he responds by telling Joe that murder is not immoral. He then proves his point by killing his neighbor Steve. The only problem is we know God decided murder is absolutely immoral, and it is still immoral even though Bob doesn't believe. Let's say John has an epiphany independent of God talking to him, and believes murder is wrong. He might not have any reason to believe it, he can never prove it, but murder is still absolutely wrong because God said so. But what if George thinks differently? George has an epiphany that murder is not immoral at all. Does that make murder a relative moral? Of course not. Since murder is absolutely wrong, no matter what George thinks or says will change it. No matter what anyone thinks or says, it won't change. The point? If morality is in fact absolute, you can't prove it, but it could be discovered. You might not ever know. You might not ever choose to believe. But if morality is in fact absolute, it doesn't matter what you think or "know," it's absolute no matter what.

Correct reasons is subjective. Your philosophy would have to be fine with the majority deciding on it for any reason.

No. That still involves your harm principle. If society deems it bad for society then it should be outlawed. Which they did in 11 states in 2004. So you agree with the principle of outlawing homosexual marriage, but not the actual resolution.

That is still a subjective belief. Let me put it to you this way, since you're having trouble understanding your own beliefs. Because all beliefs concerning the best and worst way to maintain a society are subjective (in your belief system), you would support the principle behind a ban on gay marriage if society voted for it. You might disagree with the actual decision, because your subjective beliefs on what's best for society are different, but because you believe all opinions have the same weight, you would agree with the principle of allowing for a vote to decide the issue, no matter what it is. If you disagree with that principle, you disagree with your own subjective beliefs.

I don't care about Mill's harm theory. As soon as progress is made, you move back again. Contradictory. That sentence contradicts itself. What's best for society could be what is best for his own personal gain. You cannot decide what's best for society in any way. If someone thinks personal individual gain is best for society, then it has as much weight as your "harm principle." You keep trying to pass off subjective statements as absolutes that you don't believe in. Quit.

You don't know that. All you know is that it isn't provable. You have no idea if it's discoverable.

Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws.

That's irrelevant anyway because if someone does find a way, it's relative. That's inconsistent. If the world is relative as a whole, then absolute statements can't happen. Period. You are confusing having different perspectives, and have a relative world. Of course you can make absolute statements, but if the world is relative, the absolute statements are not true.

Yes it does mean that, because if morality is subjective, neither of them are right. Therefore, and I said this before, you must admit that under subjective morality the best way to create laws is to have a vote on it, because what you think is right has no more weight than everyone else, and if we use any standard to justify legislation on, we are discriminating against people who don't think that standard is right. So once again, under your subjective morality, you would have to acknowledge that the best way to create laws would be to have people vote on them and use whatever outcomes results, that way everyone's beliefs have equal weight.

You can't justify something if there is no absolute good. That's the point you keep missing. Justification bases itself on an absolute good of some sort, you are contradicting yourself by trying to justify your belief.

You keep confusing me. If it's all subjective, then how do you know that Ambassador doesn't have a way to access what happened before the universe and therefore what he can "possibly say anything useful" about. Aren't you making very absolute statements there? If you feel as though I was putting words in your mouth, I'm sorry. But making absolute statements like that is exactly the same thing as saying you "know" something. If you are saying absolutely that Ambassador does not have a way to access what happened before the universe, then you are saying you know he doesn't. I'm sorry my previous post slightly misquoted you, but you are still talking about knowledge that you don't even think you have.

I understand completely that you don't like the fact that I base my absolute morality on a book, but you are using it to avoid admitting that you are a hypocrite. This debate is over.

Great ending, but I think Ocean's 11 beats it.

Of course I can't prove it, but that doesn't matter. If morality is subjective anyway, why do you care what I base it on? You assume that there is only one kind of protection. I happen to disagree. I know you can agree and disagree with what you like. The problem is you think it's okay to force YOUR morals and ideas on people, but it's not okay for people you disagree to do it. You fail to see that no matter what I base my sense of morals on it has just as much weight as yours because "good" is relative.

No, it doesn't make them subjective. Just because people refuse to acknowledge them does not make it subjective. You're right, I can't "prove" morality, nor will I try to. That doesn't even make sense. But that doesn't mean they can't be absolute. Your ability to question them means you have free will, not that they are subjective. According to your subjective philosophy. Once again, no matter how you spin it, what you believe the responsibility of the state is in regards to legislating morality, is your subjective opinion. And since you believe no one's subjective opinions are right, you have to admit yours isn't any more "right" than mine.

Have you ever heard of Scientific Anti-Realism? It's one of the biggest topics (Scientific Realism/Anti-Realism) in the philosophy of science, and from the way it's going I doubt it's going to be resolved any time soon. Say there is a theory, how can we evaluate any claims that it makes about objective truth? How can a subjective mind evaluate an objective claim/truth, wouldn't such an evaluation be a contradiction? Newtonian Physics and Luminous Ether were long held to be objectively true, so why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true? Exactly my point. How can you say "we know what happened at the beginning of the Universe" if you yourself don't actually know for sure? So when you speak about what we "know" about the beginning of the universe... why should I listen to your claims that this time your theory is really, really objectively true?

I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it. My belief in absolutism does not contradict itself. Assuming a good. Subjective. Trying to pass it off as an absolute. Contradiction. How many times are you going repeat the same mistake? Assuming a good. Subjective. Trying to pass it off as an absolute. Contradiction. Assuming an absolute good again. Contradiction. Because I believe in absolutism. Here's the thing: You believe YOUR beliefs are better, you just won't admit it because you know if you do it would be a glaring contradiction in your philosophy. Every time you respond you completely ignore the ridiculous contradiction you are making in your own philosophy. If you do not believe in an absolute good, your "harm principle" cannot make society absolutely better. Quit saying "protecting from harm" is best for society, because you don't believe in an absolute best, only a subjective best. Quit contradicting yourself with every post you make.

Just a question: Does ANY belief system, including athiesism, allow murders and thieves to live peacefully? Sure. There are villages in the South Pacific where theft is a cultural norm.