Gov. Shutdown?

[ncpenn]

I don't think this debate is getting us anywhere, but let's continue anyway (it's fun :p).

It's wrong because it's the law and laws normally follow societal norms.

That only makes it wrong because people have defined it that way. But you point this out further down in your post. Let's continue . . .

sane people around the world can agree that it's wrong to steal, murder, etc

Frankly, this is an assumption and not provable. Let me demonstrate.

Grant for a moment that there is a God. Grant that He's created things a certain way, that he's created people in His own image. If that were true, then people would agree that murder, stealing, etc. were wrong. In a fallen, sinful state, they may not know why they tend to hold to these truths. They may even say that "sane people around the world can agree..." without fully grasping why they feel that way.

In other words, it's plausible that there's more to it than just "sane people" agreeing to something without a deeper reason why.

It doesn't take religion for someone to know that hurting others is wrong.

How can you prove that? (Hint: you can't.) And you're ignoring (conveniently) the fact that in a world without absolute truth, hurting someone is okay if "my truth" says its okay. Why is societies truth to be accepted over mine (because they are all relative)?

If someone doesn't feel bad after hurting others for no reason, then that person is either a psychopath, sociopath, or mentally ill.

So? If it isn't absolutely wrong, then so what? It must be okay for them. Truth is relative, correct?

Do you really think that atheists think it's okay to murder people for no reason?

Not at all. Most atheists are conveniently inconsistent at this point. They want the benefits of absolute truth (reason and order), with out the responsibility (answering to God and following what He way).

before Judaism even existed.

Perhaps before Judaism was "formalized." I was thinking of it more back to the time of Abraham.

There are also many things in religious texts that people now view as immoral such as slavery, death by stoning, and polygamy.

Let's play a mental exercise here . . .

Slavery (max 7 years for debt) in a Biblical sense is not so bad, if you really think about it. We do far worse now with 30 mortgages, bankruptcies that can haunt you for a long time, etc. In the Old Testament system, everything was returned to everyone at set intervals. You couldn't ever lose it all permanently. In that way, the Old Testament system was more compassionate than what we have now.

Also, think of stoning . . . to do that, you had to have two witnesses that could recount the same story. There was no putting someone on death row because of DNA evidence or fingerprints, or any of that. Again, we in modern times are more likely to find someone guilty today than they would have been.

And, with stoning itself . . . it was a group activity. It wasn't easy and simple like lethal injection where it happens by one person in the middle of the night. This was up front, personal, and made you think. Again, it could be a safe-guard against being too quick to judgement. You didn't get to wash your hands of the thing if you handed down a guilty verdict in a capital case. You had to be part of the execution.

Polygamy isn't Biblically condoned (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but the precedent of Adam and Eve set the standard for man and woman)

Your concept of absolute truth is based on the premise that a deity even exists. You have no absolute proof that one exists.

You cannot prove one doesn't. And no, that is not a weaker argument. Furthermore, as I've said many times now, you cannot have logic as we know it, without absolutes. Using this line of thought, you want "sane people to agree" to form an absolute. That's like saying, Some A is B and Some more A is B. Therefore all A is B. It doesn't work like that.

To say it does, means you have to throw out all logic as we know it (and that means disposing of science, which is built off of logical reasoning). Do you really want to do that?

If something is consistently wrong, it cannot be because any group of people have said so. It must have come from a universal source. This is undeniable (or you must throw away all reason).

If one does exist, you don't even know which religious texts, if any, are from this deity.

Here you are correct. Logic cannot tell me that Jesus is Christ. Logic can show me that a God must exist. That is all it can do. To see that God is who he is requires faith and belief.

Do you know what Mormons used to believe was an absolute truth directly from God? They used to believe that black people couldn't go to heaven and were barred from the priesthood. That somehow became unfashionable by 1978. All of the sudden God changed his mind even though the LDS texts still say horrible things about dark-skinned peoples.

Straw man argument.