Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Nothing I've said implies that at all. I believe that humans are "moral" beings (ha, get it?), in that the overwhelming majority of people are going to behave according to our social norms. In other words, people aren't going to be assholes just because objective morality doesn't exist.You're right when you say that people aren't going to become assholes. However, if everything is completely subjectivised, there will be nothing that is truly wrong. Ya people may have their own opinions about what they think is right or wrong, but there is nothing stopping someone from putting a bullet in your head and saying something about how it was the right thing to doNo, it really doesn't. We are discussing the abstract concept of morality, that does not prove that an objective code exists. That's like saying discussing unicorns proves that they exist (not in a metaphysical sense, I mean).There is an inherent flaw in your argument. You are comparing something immaterial to something that is material (or would be if they existed)Nope. All it takes is one person to prove that wrong, and since I do not believe that everyone else must (or even should) follow my moral code, that one is effectively negated.That is a fair pointAre you telling me you think that every one of your opinions is objective?Maybe not EVERY single one, but for the most part yesNo, what makes it subjective is the fact that it is based on their personal opinions. The desire to apply it to others does not have any relation to the definition of the word subjective.You're right, but you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't saying that people have the desire to apply it to everyone. What I was saying was that, whether its conscious or not, it is applied to everyoneWe aren't talking about justification, we are talking about the concept of morality. Their thoughts or feelings are what will determine if they think they are justified in doing something, and whether or not it is right or wrong.Except you do need to justify right and wrong. You do need to have reason why you're doing something. Okay, do you know what the definition of the word "justify" is? "To show to be just or right". The act of justifying is an individual trying to convey that they believe what they did was right. That means that these people believe what they did was right, while others do not. Both sides believe they have morality on their side, and in many cases, there is no clear answer as to which is right.Just a little off on the definition here. Its to show or prove to be right or reasonable. Just because there may not be a clear answer that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality. All that means is that people don't know what to do. This is just a conjecture on my part, but it seems like you think that if morality were objective, everyone would know what to do in every moral situation, but because we don't then morality must be subjectiveRepeating that over and over does not make it a universally held truth.Except I'm not just repeating it for my own health. I repeat it because a claim that requires this kind of answer keeps being brought upI feel like part of this sentence got cut off.It wasn't. It was intended to be like thatYou have repeated this claim like a dozen times without providing a single logical justification for it's conclusion. There is no logical way in which the simple discussion of morality proves objective morality exists. One can argue that it proves that the concept of morality exists outside of ourselves, which, I mean, duh, but it does not prove that objective morality exists in any way.If morality exists outside of us, why wouldn't the standard also exist outside of us?And again, there is no logical link here. We as a society have come together through processes to determine what actions the state will allow or forbid. That has no link to objective morality.People may be able to know that something should be allowed or forbidden, but how can they justify why it should be allowed or forbidden?We aren't talking about legality, we are talking about morality. You can easily find places in which what we consider to be murder is considered morally acceptable. Take the Sentinelse people, for example, or certain tribes in New Guinea.The legal system has everything to do with morality. The law tells us that one behavior is right and the opposite is wrongNo you didn't, you begged the question and made claims with no epistemological backing.Thats because this isn't an argument of epistemology. Its an argument of ontologyAnd again you are just being an ass. I disagree that what you provided with evidence, and now you are saying "agree with me or I'll insult you". That's pathetic.Hold on. According to everything you've been saying up to this point, morality is subject to each persons opinion. Why would what I said be morally wrong if morality is truly subjective? Did what I say all of a sudden become objectively wrong? Also, where did you get the idea that I was insulting you? Aren't I just making a claim about what you said? It may have been hard to hear, but how was it an insult?Pull this "Agree with me or I will insult you" shit again and I'm out.You're the only one thinking that I'm saying this. The truth can be offensive sometimes. What I said follows logically from what you said