Otherwise it would be too confusing as everyone would give their own interpretation rather than obeying one divine set of laws.
Objective morality is better than man-made human rights
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
non-objective morality = your morality is no better or more correct than a person who thinks it is good to be a serial killer child rapist = no morality at all
Non objective morality is LITERALLY just people disagreeing. According to you, people disagreeing means no morality at all.
Which if it isn't clear enough by now, it's retarded.
If you disagree over what is moral then who decides what is moral?
Explain why it is nonsensical.
>If you disagree over what people agree on what's good and bad, then who decides the agreement of people on what's good and bad?
The answer is of course the dubiously existent magic man in the sky that endorses moahmmed having more wives than anyone else, of course.
Why is there disagreement? Over what?
Typical atheist homosexual who squeels like a pig when faced with the consequences of what he asserts as his world view.
is there a fact of the matter about whether you , who says that it is wrong to rape and murder children , are morally correct or whether a child rapist who says that is good to rape and murder children is morally correct?
If you do not believe in objective morality then either you believe that there is no fact of the matter in which case moral truth does not exist according to you and so you basically do not believe in morality , or the fact of the matter is that two directly contradicting statements are both true and correct simultaneously, which by the principle of explosion means every statement and every contradictory statement are all true.
mind = broken replies do not apply
the atheist AIDS-victim israelily squirms and tries to use sacarsm to mask the fact that he has no argument or rational grounds to disagree with
Yes it would be better if only people could agree on what it was, which they have never done
Elaborate please because this is an interesting discussion
>The websites that speak ill of the religion of Allah and of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) are no different from the gatherings where people say similar things that constitute kufr. In both cases it is haraam to stay in such gatherings and it is haraam to visit such websites, except for one who will object to what they do and is able to put a stop to these offences. If he is not able to do that, and those people carry on with what they are doing, then it is not permissible to remain in that gathering and it is not permissible to visit those websites.
Too bad there is no such thing.
That is Subjective. Go away adults are talking.....
Sunni, Shiite or Sufi? Is it moral to have slaves, have sex with underage children or murder someone because he made a joke? Because the hadiths and the quran support such actions.
Religion is immoral.
All ethic is man-made. Morality itself is intersubjektive and social-dependent.
Objective morality could be a great thing if it existed.
Ok great. Now prove Islam isn't man made.
Morality doesnt exist. It is just a useful tool to facilitate social order. What we call morality are just intuitions we intrinsically posses and there is nothing objective about that. You dont consult the bible or your prefered system of philosophy in order to figure out if diddling kids is bad. You feel intuitively diddling kids is bad and try to use the bible to justify your intuition in a post hoc way.
what makes an act intrinsically moral or immoral? do tell