Time doesn't exist

[Turtlekid1]

That may make an action more or less advisable from a practical standpoint, but it has nothing to do with whether it's moral or not. 

Consider: I murder someone in cold blood.  No one sees me, and this person is someone that will not be missed for a long time, if at all - the perfect crime, if you will.  Is my action morally wrong?  It broke the golden rule, but to imply that there will be some sort of consequence would be to imply a supernatural aspect, or "karma," about morals.  If there are still consequences, where do they come from (for we've already established that no one on earth knew of the act; nor will they ever learn of it)? 

It comes down to whether Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is the One who initiated morality, or just another god of another religion; but I rather thought the point you were trying to make was that there is nothing supernatural about morality.  If there aren't consequences, then why is such an action wrong?

[PaperLuigi]

I never said there were consequences.

[Turtlekid1]

Then what motivation do I have to follow the Golden Rule?

[PaperLuigi]

Because it's the right thing to do.

[Toad]

Wouldn't you feel a bit.. odd at committing such an act? I mean sure, nobody would find out (hypothetically), but it would weigh on your conscience forever, until you confessed to it or died.

(sorry to just jump in like that)

[Turtlekid1]

Sure, it would weigh on me.  Let me say once and for all that I'm not actually advocating murder or theft.  I'm trying to make the point that these actions cannot be inherently wrong from a moral standpoint unless there's a moral standard (God).

Also, it's refreshing to see someone new offer his opinion on the matter.  YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY, THE MORE THE ME--erm, perhaps now isn't the time.

Because it's the right thing to do.

Why?  Who says?  What makes it right?  It seems that you want accountability without a standard to decide who should be held accountable.

[PaperLuigi]

Why?  Who says?  What makes it right? 

We are.

[Weegee]

What makes an action inherently right or wrong? Look up Kant's categorical imperative. It's basically the golden rule for moral absolutists.

So, are you calling yourself a "moral absolutist"? If so, why should we humans be the measure of moralism? Why is it then inherently wrong to kill someone against their will? If you call doing so wrong but Crazy Bill calls it right, who's to say that your judgement is more valid than Bill's?

[Chupperson Weird]

I still don't understand why Turtlekid thinks that he can be an evil jerk if no one's looking. And I also don't get why he doesn't understand the principle of the golden rule. I mean, do you want to be robbed? Do you want to be killed? No? Then why would you do it to someone else?
The "moral standard" is perfectly maintained by the golden rule.

If he's a drain on society, then he needs to die for the greater good.

Dude, you are making this $#*@ up. No one else thinks that way. You either have such a skewed understanding of society as to be completely unrecognizable, or you are just trying to create situations that you think help your argument.
I can see that your mind is twisted though by your repeated mention of "consequences". Why do you only want to do the right thing if it gets you into heaven? Why not do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do? Someone truly "moral" wouldn't be doing things simply to be rewarded later. That's completely missing the point and I think God would be very disappointed in you.

To recap: Consequences don't make something right or wrong! They are simply a byproduct of your actions. Thus I ask you again, would it be wrong to kill you if I felt like it and I knew no one would know or care? Of course. Even if you have the mentality of a totally backwards and sickening troll. I don't want to be killed and think it would be wrong to be killed, so logically I must conclude that other people don't want to be killed either.

[Weegee]

He's just taking the argument to its logical extreme. Obviously he doesn't think that way, but there are inevitably some who do.

[Turtlekid1]

I still don't understand why Turtlekid thinks that he can be an evil jerk if no one's looking. And I also don't get why he doesn't understand the principle of the golden rule. I mean, do you want to be robbed? Do you want to be killed? No? Then why would you do it to someone else?

Because I can do it without consequences.  If no one sees me or ever finds out, and if there are no consequences, why the heck shouldn't I live however I want?  After all, there's no Heaven or Hell, so I should just live for the experiences in the here and now; and I'm not going to be pinned down by silly old rules that other people live by.  If other people want to restrict themselves with foolish morals, that's their choice.  

The "moral standard" is perfectly maintained by the golden rule.

More like "expressed by the Golden Rule," but whatever.

Dude, you are making this $#*@ up. No one else thinks that way. You either have such a skewed understanding of society as to be completely unrecognizable, or you are just trying to create situations that you think help your argument.

Lots of people think that way.  They're called criminals, and they're the ones living right if there's no God.

I can see that your mind is twisted though by your repeated mention of "consequences". Why do you only want to do the right thing if it gets you into heaven? Why not do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do? Someone truly "moral" wouldn't be doing things simply to be rewarded later. That's completely missing the point and I think God would be very disappointed in you.

Seriously, does no one understand that I really do not think in terms of consequences?  I don't do the right thing "to get into Heaven."  Any consistent atheist, on the other hand, has no reason to respect any moral rules.

To recap: Consequences don't make something right or wrong! They are simply a byproduct of your actions. Thus I ask you again, would it be wrong to kill you if I felt like it and I knew no one would know or care? Of course. Even if you have the mentality of a totally backwards and sickening troll. I don't want to be killed and think it would be wrong to be killed, so logically I must conclude that other people don't want to be killed either.

Screw what other people want.  If there's only one life to live; if this is it; if this is all you get, then you can't afford to consider what everyone else wants.  You've gotta live for you and only for you.  If there's no one to establish a moral code, how can you say that it's morally wrong to kill me in cold blood?  You can't.  What's to say someone's desire to not be killed is more valid than my desire to kill them?

[PaperLuigi]

So, are you calling yourself a "moral absolutist"?

No, I am not a moral absolutist. I was pointing Turtlekid1 into the direction of a better morality than Christianity because he is a moral absolutist.

[Chupperson Weird]

Okay I am really confused by Turtlekid now. Just thought I'd let everyone know. He is totally insane.

(Just because you claim that someone thinks a certain way does not mean they do; I mean how could you ever claim to know in the first place? I say again, your self-serving arguments are paper-thin and totally illogical.)

[Weegee]

Just because you claim that someone thinks a certain way does not mean they do

True, although countless individuals, namely

criminals

, have proven themselves to act this way. If the entire world came to glorify and endorse needless bloodshed, would it still be wrong? Relativists think by consensus, after all.

[PaperLuigi]

 Any consistent atheist, on the other hand, has no reason to respect any moral rules.

Um...how about no? I'm an atheist and I respect the golden rule because it's the right thing to do. Who says that the lack of a supernatural being constitutes a lack of morals?