No, the whatever was meant specifically for that single point, I thought you'd catch on.

So... you basically admit to using circular logic to justify whatever you believe in. Good to know. Just as you say "I found all morals given by God are perfectly correct," I can say "I found all morals given by XXXXXXXXX are perfectly correct" where XXXXX is literally anything, again even fairy tales hold as much logical backing as any belief system out there. In fact using circular logic like you do, I can make ust about anything sound true.

I only bash on religious people when they say spout nonsense.

As for pointing out facts randomly just to irritate christians, this is just inmaturity.

From what I've read on this topic, Vlad seems like he needs to learn more about human relationships.

I'm not seeing the circularity. He said he follows Christ's teachings because he agrees with the moral values they instill. That is not circular, and all ethical systems ultimately come back to this point. In essence, the question is, "what is good behavior?" Different ethical systems answer this question differently, and this gives rise to different types of behavior being justified. Most ethical criticism derives from the fact that the behavior justified by an ethical system might not be consonant with a person's feelings. If people raise these points, there is an impasse that prevents further discussion becuase there is an inherent difficulty in arguing over whose feelings are better.

For example, take utilitarianism. I don't feel that the sacrifice of innocents can be justified. Given that utilitarianism allows for the sacrifice of innocents, I reject utilitarian ethics. A utilitarian can come along and say that innocents can be sacrificed as long as the world benefits from the action. The problem is that I have already rejected that proposition because it gives rise to behavior I find to be unethical.

The main point I am making is that all ethical systems eventually come back to foundational beliefs, and if someone rejects these beliefs, there is no further reason for argumentation because they will be talking in circles. Asking someone to prove why someone should treat others as they would like to be treated also falls into the same category. The best someone could do is give examples of how this principle results in good behavior. If someone then denies this is good behavior (or asks why this behavior is good, like you are doing), there is no good objective answer because the truth of the statement is taken as foundational. This is a problem that confronts all ethical systems (not just the teachings of Christ), so you could play the questioning game with any system of ethical belief and eventually force the follower of that belief into a corner.

How can you be half Christian? "Christian" isn't a race.

Are you saying that there's vasically no such thing as objective morality, because the very premises are based on a subjective belief? But aren't these beliefes themselves instilled in people?

"As hypocrisy is said to be the highest compliment to virtue, the art of lying is the strongest acknowledgment of the force of truth" - William Hazlitt

The higher the moral standard, the more likely individuals who consider it to be right, will be called hypocrites for holding such standards as being right.  In the area of debate over moral values, if the ONLY charge you hold is that of hypocrisy, then the individual doing such is likely very devoid of morals of their own they can persuade others to be valid.

Ok, besides this, who cares what people think of Christians or a belief in God?  Yes, people have lots of issues here, but that is life.

No, there could be objective morals, but it is unlikely we will ever have complete agreement on what these foundational truths actually are.

"But aren't these beliefes themselves instilled in people?" I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Could you elaborate?

And if I ask of him why he agrees with those morals, he will say because it is what Christ taught, and you get the circle.

You have hit my point on the head. I can force any follower of any belief into a corner. That is true, and that is exactly why all beliefs are equally wrong, even those of atheists as I have already pointed out (however statistically, atheists are less wrong than followers of a given religion solely because a given religion is a lot less broad than "there is no god"). My sole belief that I know is correct is that all beliefs about existance, how we came to be, etc. that have been outlined by humankind are wrong given the amount of information we have, which is 0. Unless we find more information about what happened before, any belief about our existance is most probably wrong.

As for my ethical standpoint I am an extreme utilitarian. Except that I look at reducing the greatest amount of misery from the greatest number of people. Where a dead person is infinite misery, and if everyone is equal I consider everyone to be miserable not happy. Those two stipulatoins actually make the logic/math/whatever behind utilitarianism more or less flawless.

"My sole belief that I know is correct is that all beliefs about existance, how we came to be, etc. that have been outlined by humankind are wrong given the amount of information we have, which is 0".
You can`t say that your belief is correct and at the same say all that we know is wrong. That`s a contradiction. You can be either wrong or right. Therefore: "exactly why all beliefs are equally wrong" is not a correct way to aproach beliefs, seeing as we don`t know everything and therefore, logically speaking, utititarianism isn`t more or less flawless. It`s either right or wrong, according to your principle.


"and if everyone is equal I consider everyone to be miserable not happy". Equal by definition or by essence doesn`t necessarily mean that in existence or in real life everyone is the same, as reality shows. I am human as you, but as you see, what guide us and "defines us" - with all the consequences that come from it - are different.

You know, logic is all very nice and all, but it`s still a way to express something. One thing that is valid may not be true and one thing that is true, given the argument, may not be valid.
Using circular logic is, maybe, just our lack of better reasoning but that doesn`t mean things that are being defended are meaningless or as good as anything.
So what about circular logic? People define concepts while still utilizing categories associated to that object, that actually are part of it. It`s just a language barrier that doesn`t prove that something is right or wrong.
In every single regression argument, there`s a point where people can`t explain themselves without resorting the the foundation.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am quite certain that is not the answer he would give given his previous responses. Atleast, it is not the response that most Chrisian theolgians would give. Christ's teachings are not right because the Bible says so. His teachings are right because they agree with the objective moral law. The main point I was attempting to make in my previous post is that this objective moral law is then taken as a foundational truth that needs no further justification.