Atheists have no morality!

[Acriku]

the moment you say that there is no right and wrong, you speak for everyone. Even if it is your opinion, you are still saying "It is my opinion that everyone who thinks there is a right and wrong....is wrong. Right and wrong is only determined individually....and if you disagree, even though you are not me, you are wrong."

I can be of the opinion that everyone who says otherwise is wrong (although I'd be willing to try and understand how they came to that conclusion), but I still speak for myself. If I spoke for everyone, then I would be assuming that they are of the same opinion, and since I know they all are not, I cannot speak for them.

a SERIOUS contradiction here. So sad that your atheism has blinded you to simple logic.

I don't see how a discussion like this would deal with anything SERIOUS, and I also don't see what in atheism could blind me from anything. You're putting more into the definition than what the definition entails.

an atheist could have stopped the slave trade, but not do so rationally and be consistent with himself. The only way to have stopped a WORLD WIDE institution that was accepted as RIGHT by the MAJORITY of humans on earth, is to make an appeal to an absolute moral standard. It is impossible to do so otherwise...or are you going to explain how?

If that person's morality is that slavery is wrong for everybody, that does not make the morality absolute, or universal. You said it yourself, not everybody would abide by it. And even if everyone did abide by it, it still does not sufficiently prove that there is an absolute, universal morality. If it is universal, and absolute, why doesn't everyone abide by it?

Also, if it was part of my morality (Note: my morality) that treating humans unfairly based on their race, or ethnicity, is wrong, then I could very well be an advocate of the stopping of the world wide trade. I don't see why I could not. My morality is not therefore universal nor absolute, but it's still my morality. We all have moralities, but not one is universal, nor absolute, and also no morality is less valid for being relative. You seem to think they do become less valid, and that is where I think you are wrong.

wrong for just you? Or wrong for everyone, for all time?

If it is your opinion that slavery is wrong for everyone, then you just contradicted yourself (again).

Slavery is wrong for me, and anyone who also thinks so. It is my opinion that it is wrong, and not a universal moral.

Acriku is making objective claims about morality

Those objective claims themselves do not constitute a morality, and do not suggest that there is a universal morality, either. So there is no contradiction.

Either Hitler's actions were WRONG or they were NOT WRONG. They cannot be both right and wrong simultaneously.

You're using the fallacy of the excluded middle. It can't either be wrong or not wrong, as it is relative. They can be neither right nor wrong simultaneously, as I do suspect.

This statement is true for all humans.

Oh omniscient emprworm, tell me my future so that I can avoid future tragedies ::)

[nemafakei]

"any objective claim about anything is just that...objective. And no amount of entanglement with semantics will erase that Acriku is making objective claims about morality, and that the summary of those claims is that morality is not objective."

Yes, that's what I said. He is making an objective claim that something is subjective - which you had previously stated was impossible... it was you who first tried to muddy with the waters with your semantic ideas.

"aside from that, the very fact that any athiest would make an objective claim is questionable to begin with."

So who would you rather make the objective claim?

"Either his actions were objectively wrong or they were not. One must be true, and the other must be false. (law of noncontradiction)"

That is utter rubbish!

I could just as easily say

"Either this flower is objectively beautiful or it is not. One must be true, and the other must be false. (law of noncontradiction)"

which you've already accepted as wrong!

The idea of subjectivity is not that things may be multiple things simultanously as you seem to be twisting its meaning into, but that things *can be considered* as different things by different people, and there is no definitive answer (as Acriku says, they are neither wrong nor right), because there is no perfect definition of the quantity supposed to be subjective (eg beauty, morality).

[alchemi2]

I dont get why you are linking morality to religon and god?

Morality is agreed by majority of society and defined by the laws they then create.

Morality changes as society changes hence the abolishion of slavery.

If an entire culture belives that it is right to murder their first born child for the good of all, then its morally acceptable to them.

morality is subjective, some individuals will always question the morality of their society and work for change.

whether or not you belive in god,allah, budda or the great norse god thor is immaterial to the arguement about morality.

thats only my humble opionion of cause. ;D