I walked out of church today.

[Omega]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?

[eric42434224]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?

7 string already answered this.  The north/south analogy really isnt working here as it isnt black/white in nature.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

What about it?  They obviously have their own moral compass that is not in line with the majority.
I think it is OK to fap to porn, have sex before marriage, not believe in Jesus Christ, gays can go to a heaven if one exists, and for people to have abortions.  Those would all be diametrically opposed to any "good" catholic.  Morals are subjective, upbringings and environments are different, making everones compass read differently. 

[Omega]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?

7 string already answered this.

On this thread?

[Scheavo]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

This so much.  You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.  And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.

[eric42434224]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

If you don't know when it is pointing south, then how would you know it is pointing north?

7 string already answered this.

On this thread?

Yes. 

You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas. 

[Omega]

What about it?  They obviously have their own moral compass that is not in line with the majority.
I think it is OK to fap to porn, have sex before marriage, not believe in Jesus Christ, gays can go to a heaven if one exists, and for people to have abortions.  Those would all be diametrically opposed to any "good" catholic.  Morals are subjective, upbringings and environments are different, making everones compass read differently.

Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong). Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.

[Omega]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

This so much.  You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.  And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.

Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to  buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.

If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?


[eric42434224]

Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).

I dont make the objective claim that murder is wrong.  There are scenarios where killing someone is considered morally correct.  A soldier protecting his country.  I would kill someone to protect my family.  Killing someone is not always morally wrong.

Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.

If society deems something to be morally OK, then those opposing it would be considered morally not OK.  That doesnt mean the opposing person cant think he is indeed morally OK...him being a bad moral agent is only in the eyes of those aligned with society.  It is a matter of perspective and is subjective.

[The King in Crimson]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

This so much.  You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.  And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.

Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to  buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.

If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?


Would you want someone to do that to you?

[Omega]

Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).

I dont make the objective claim that murder is wrong.  There are scenarios where killing someone is considered morally correct.  A soldier protecting his country.  I would kill someone to protect my family.  Killing someone is not always morally wrong.

Point is that in moral relativism, no one is right or wrong. Actions lose all moral meaning.

Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.

If society deems something to be morally OK, then those opposing it would be considered morally not OK.

Exactly. So what if society deems child rape moral? Is it still immoral, regardless of what the majority deems it to be? Or is it now moral because the majority deems it to be?

[Omega]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

This so much.  You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.  And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.

Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to  buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.

If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?


Would you want someone to do that to you?

Obviously not. But why should that stop me from killing him? What if I don't care whether the person dies or lives?

[eric42434224]

Notice what that entails though; since morals are subjective and a complete product of relativism, you cannot make an objective moral claim (ie murder is wrong).

I dont make the objective claim that murder is wrong.  There are scenarios where killing someone is considered morally correct.  A soldier protecting his country.  I would kill someone to protect my family.  Killing someone is not always morally wrong.

Point is that in moral relativism, no one is right or wrong. Actions lose all moral meaning.

Were the majority, for example, to embrace slavery as morally "good," anyone who would oppose slavery would become a "bad" moral agent.

If society deems something to be morally OK, then those opposing it would be considered morally not OK.

Exactly. So what if society deems child rape moral? Is it still immoral, regardless of what the majority deems it to be? Or is it now moral because the majority deems it to be?

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.
You seem to like to use extreme examples and want to have objective morals.
They arent objective.  Who has the final and authoritative list on what exactly is moral an immoral?
Is it black and white or are there extenuating circumstances?


And with moral relativism, actions do not lose all moral meaning.  Why would you say that?  If it is moral to a person or group for whatever reason, then the action has moral meaning.
 

[Omega]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

[eric42434224]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?

[yeshaberto]

Oh sorry.   I think it was me that determined it

[Omega]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?

Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.

[eric42434224]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?

Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.

Yes...if you feel morals are objective.

I, and many others, do not.
We do not need any moral choice to be ultimately superior or inferior.  They are dependent on the person, group, scenario, etc.

[The King in Crimson]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?

Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.

Murder is not always wrong and charity is not always right. 

Is it wrong to murder a despot?  Is it right to donate to a charity that promotes slavery?  I'm sure you'll find at least one (if not more people) that would say yes to the first and are they wrong for believing so?  Some people are vegans and believe that killing animals is wrong.  I believe that animals are delicious.  Am I wrong?

Society believes in some pretty abhorrent things in general.  Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.  Society and government believes weed should be illegal, I disagree.  Is it right to kill people because of a differing set of beliefs? 

[the Catfishman]

If my moral compass deems something wrong, then I think it is morally wrong.

But what might be wrong to you may be right to someone else. Who's ultimately right?

Why must there be an "ultimate right" or "ultimate wrong"?

Because without either, no moral position is superior or inferior to the other: murder becomes morally indistinguishable from charity.

look at it as unwritten social agreements that have developed over time, nobody wants to live in a society where murder is looked upon the same way as playing a game of tennis.
And yes, these agreements are constantly changing although some core elements can be seen in every society on earth (even in (other) animals) even though they have been isolated from each other for thousands of years (things like; protecting/honouring your family, murder.. etc).

(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory )

[kirksnosehair]

I don't need some clergyman setting my moral compass for me.

Maybe not, but you've got somebody else filling that role. Everybody does.

Right, because at almost 48 years old I must still need my Mommy to tell me what's right and wrong? 

[Scheavo]

I dont, and really...neither does anyone else.

This so much.  You just do what feels right.  Most people can figure out right from wrong anyways just from their own upbringings.  Parents/schooling give you a pretty good sense of right and wrong granted you haven't been failed in those areas.  And if those areas fail miserably, then maybe religion can fill the gap.

What if it feels right for someone to murder and rape?

Religion isn't going to stop a psychopath from killing anyone, it's just going to make him justify it in a different way.

Let's say that it's 10 years from now. I've been kicked out of my foreclosed house, my wife has left me, and I have lost contact with all my family out of shame. I go to a local bar to drown my sorrows with whatever money I have left. You are a homeless man whom no one really knows. You save enough money to  buy a lottery ticket. From watching a TV through a store window, you find out that the lottery ticket you bought is the winning ticket. You go to the same bar I go to that evening to celebrate. You haven't told anybody that you won and you wouldn't really know who to tell because you don't really know anybody and no one really knows you. Yet after a couple of drinks, you open up to me and tell me that you have a winning lottery ticket. As you start leaving the bar late night, I follow you. That lottery ticket could solve all my problems.

If morals were subjective / if I was a nihilist / if I was an atheist and I knew or was utterly convinced that I could get away with killing you and stealing that lottery ticket, what would stop me from doing so? Wouldn't it be beneficial to me to do so? I mean, after all, aren't we just a bunch of randomly ordered matter that will inevitably die and become more randomly ordered matter?

Wow, where to start...

First of all, you seem ot be completely unaware of who psycopaths are, what it entails, etc. Read through this. Religion will be irrelevant.

Secondly, you seem to be completley ignorant of all the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion. You see, the thing about eternal damnation and eternal rewards is those two things can lead to some very unsavory and horrible ends. TO take your example, perhaps my religion honestly believes that that homeless guy getting the lottery is unjust, evil, and that he is an evil man. It then becomes my duty to kill the evil person. Or, perhaps as is the case in some religions, I'm supposed to "talk to God" personally, which basically amounts to listening to what you want, which could lead to me honestly thinking God wants me to kill that person, and for me to get the money. God set it up so that the homeless man would win, and come talk to me, to show me what I"m supposed to do. There's so many instances of this through out history, I won't even bother to list them for you.

Secondly, AS someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't think God exists, and isn't afraid of eternal damnation or eternal bliss, I can tell you that my disposition and beliefs are completely abhorrent to the idea of killing someone for money. I could put this in a very selfish light, saying that I couldn't kill someone because that action would haunt me for the rest of my life, and I couldn't live with myself. And seeing as how I don't think I go anywhere when I die, I want this life of mine to be as good as possible, meaning I"m not going to kill someone and self-torture myself.

There's also the fact that, as I would contend, all you're doing by following religious teaching is following someone elses moral compass, not even your own. You listen to the book, that some other guy wrote, or you listen to the preacher, who is simply giving you his opinion on the book, or his personal beliefs on the manner.

And then there's the fact that it's very arguably better and more virtuous to do something for it-self, and not for some other reward. As in, if you're only acting good because you think it'll lead to you Heaven, or something, then as soon as you think something will lead you to heaven, that becomes "good," no matter how wrong it arguably is. Again, look at all the atrocities commited in the name of Religion through out history.

My point isn't to demonize religion, it's that religion is completely irrelevant to morals and ethics. Morality and ethics are grounded in genetics and culture, something religion is only a part of.

[7StringedBeast]

Great post dude!  ^^  Very well stated.

[Omega]

Wow, where to start...

First of all, you seem ot be completely unaware of who psycopaths are, what it entails, etc. Read through this. Religion will be irrelevant.

Secondly, you seem to be completley ignorant of all the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion. You see, the thing about eternal damnation and eternal rewards is those two things can lead to some very unsavory and horrible ends. TO take your example, perhaps my religion honestly believes that that homeless guy getting the lottery is unjust, evil, and that he is an evil man. It then becomes my duty to kill the evil person. Or, perhaps as is the case in some religions, I'm supposed to "talk to God" personally, which basically amounts to listening to what you want, which could lead to me honestly thinking God wants me to kill that person, and for me to get the money. God set it up so that the homeless man would win, and come talk to me, to show me what I"m supposed to do. There's so many instances of this through out history, I won't even bother to list them for you.

Religion, like science, politics, etc, can be abused. Religion isn't inherently evil just as science isn't inherently evil: religion can be used for good or used for bad. Science can be used for good or can be used for bad. I haven't even mentioned religion in my previous posts. I merely am alluding to the existence of an objective morality.

Secondly, AS someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't think God exists, and isn't afraid of eternal damnation or eternal bliss, I can tell you that my disposition and beliefs are completely abhorrent to the idea of killing someone for money. I could put this in a very selfish light, saying that I couldn't kill someone because that action would haunt me for the rest of my life, and I couldn't live with myself.

So the reason you wouldn't kill the man is for guilt? Why would you feel guilt if all you are doing is merely ending the life of some schmuck whom no one knows are cares about? Why would you be impelled to feel guilt if you are merely killing another animal to your gain? Why would you feel guilt if you believed that the man you killed was nothing more than mere matter organized into a human that would eventually die anyways?

And seeing as how I don't think I go anywhere when I die, I want this life of mine to be as good as possible, meaning I"m not going to kill someone and self-torture myself.

If the objective of life is to live as good or as pleasurable as possible, wouldn't it be reasonable to want to take the lottery ticket to live as pleasurable a life before you hit the dust?

This also merely entails a life whose goal is merely a hedonistic one: maximize pleasure in your life and maximize the length of your life as long as possible before your inevitable death. Yet this raises another problem; who defines what a pleasurable life is? You will no doubt respond that it is ultimately the individual who deems what a "pleasurable" or "good" life might entail. And therefore if an individual derives pleasure from murder, who are we to say that his definition of pleasure or a good life is wrong?

There's also the fact that, as I would contend, all you're doing by following religious teaching is following someone elses moral compass, not even your own. You listen to the book, that some other guy wrote, or you listen to the preacher, who is simply giving you his opinion on the book, or his personal beliefs on the manner.

This is a common misconception. Most theists don't believe that morality is derived from a text or from sermons; most believe that an objective moral code is inscribed in the very "soul,"  psyche, or intellect of every human by a divine moral prescriber. This moral code is ultimately what we would call a conscience. We recognize what is objectively wrong and what isn't, yet we are free to ignore our conscience, rebel against our own morality, and commit immoral acts.

[Omega]

Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.

Why?

[eric42434224]

Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.

Why?

It is probably because the belief society holds (which may only be a segment of the society) does not align with his personal beliefs.  This is evident with issues like abortion, birth control, etc. 
Society or a group does not make objective morals.  The morals of the individual and groups are subjective.

[Omega]

Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.

Why?

It is probably because the belief society holds (which may only be a segment of the society) does not align with his personal beliefs.  This is evident with issues like abortion, birth control, etc. 
Society or a group does not make objective morals.  The morals of the individual and groups are subjective.

Exactly. Moral assertions have been reduced to mere individual opinions. Similar to asking for an opinion as to which color you think is the coolest. Why would one answer (say black - the coolest color, btw) be superior or inferior to another (say baby blue...eww)?


In an atheistic / naturalistic worldview, on what basis can you make a value judgment that a society which embraces slavery is inferior or immoral as compared to one that doesn't?

Why is our societal set of values that abhors slavery superior to a society which adheres to slavery?

Why is a society that abhors slavery a moral improvement rather than a mere difference?

[eric42434224]

Serious question.
In the H thread, it appeared you had absolutely zero intent to entertain any scenario other than your belief in BVG.  It is clear that you believe in objective morals, and not subjective ones.  You continue to ask about our views of morals, and instead of accepting what we are saying, you continue to ask questions that you know have either already been answered, or cant be answered.
Are you really interested in how we view morals subjectively, or are you trying to prove your view is correct?
The reason I ask is that you are just asking the same questions and arent accepting our answers.

As a broad example, you keep asking how we know our view or belief is superior/inferior, or right/wrong.  We hasve answered several times.  We feel that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that each view is affected by many individual factors, and we make our own personal judgement.  Yet you continue to ask the same question as if you are trying to prove objective morals.

This thread is not a debate on objective or subjective morals.

[Omega]

Serious question.
In the H thread, it appeared you had absolutely zero intent to entertain any scenario other than your belief in BVG.

But I have entertained many other scenarios alternative to the one implied by the BGV. They did not satisfy a rational explanation for the observations we have made of our universe as concisely as the BGV.

It is clear that you believe in objective morals, and not subjective ones.  You continue to ask about our views of morals, and instead of accepting what we are saying, you continue to ask questions that you know have either already been answered, or cant be answered.
Are you really interested in how we view morals subjectively, or are you trying to prove your view is correct?
The reason I ask is that you are just asking the same questions and arent accepting our answers.

As a broad example, you keep asking how we know our view or belief is superior/inferior, or right/wrong.  We hasve answered several times.  We feel that there is no absolute right or wrong, and that each view is affected by many individual factors, and we make our own personal judgement.  Yet you continue to ask the same question as if you are trying to prove objective morals.

I keep asking because I'm not getting a logical answer. I keep re-formulating the query so as to avoid vagueness and to illicit a reasonable response.

This thread is not a debate on objective or subjective morals.

Well...no, it's not, but the conversation has evolved into this naturally. Why halt it?

[eric42434224]

Youre not getting a logical answer?  No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs.  The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical.  It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.

[Omega]

Youre not getting a logical answer?  No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs.  The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical.  It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.

No, I have not been getting a logical answer. For example, evidently unbeknown to you, the responses you have provided are re-affirming my point.

[eric42434224]

Youre not getting a logical answer?  No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs.  The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical.  It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.

No, I have not been getting a logical answer. For example, evidently unbeknown to you, the responses you have provided are re-affirming my point.

What answer was not logical, and what specifically is your point?

[Scheavo]

Secondly, AS someone who doesn't believe in God, doesn't think God exists, and isn't afraid of eternal damnation or eternal bliss, I can tell you that my disposition and beliefs are completely abhorrent to the idea of killing someone for money. I could put this in a very selfish light, saying that I couldn't kill someone because that action would haunt me for the rest of my life, and I couldn't live with myself.

So the reason you wouldn't kill the man is for guilt? Why would you feel guilt if all you are doing is merely ending the life of some schmuck whom no one knows are cares about? Why would you be impelled to feel guilt if you are merely killing another animal to your gain? Why would you feel guilt if you believed that the man you killed was nothing more than mere matter organized into a human that would eventually die anyways?

Not at all, I said I could. I wouldn't kill someone because I find it abhorrent, because I have empathy, and other things, which were determined that I have because of my genetic code, and thousands of years of evolution, and the reinforcement by social values to be empathetic. You wouldn't kill the guy because you're afarid of eternal damnation? Then what if you're conscious, as you point out later is the voice of God, said you should kill the guy? Well, then I guess it's what God wanted, and I guess it's what you're supposed to do!

There's also the fact that, as I would contend, all you're doing by following religious teaching is following someone elses moral compass, not even your own. You listen to the book, that some other guy wrote, or you listen to the preacher, who is simply giving you his opinion on the book, or his personal beliefs on the manner.

This is a common misconception. Most theists don't believe that morality is derived from a text or from sermons; most believe that an objective moral code is inscribed in the very "soul,"  psyche, or intellect of every human by a divine moral prescriber. This moral code is ultimately what we would call a conscience. We recognize what is objectively wrong and what isn't, yet we are free to ignore our conscience, rebel against our own morality, and commit immoral acts.

Ahh! So you listen to your conscience, which tells a lot of people very bad things. Again, you seem to be completely ignorant of psychopaths, and the fact that many people's conscious simply doesn't work. Thanks to science, we know a lot of reasons why this happens, and just so happens, God is absent from this entire process; that or he is a complete asshole for not giving some people empathy, and a proper conscious.

Also, you should notice how much this response mirrors the selfish argument I made, that my conscious would, if nothing else, prevent me from killing the homeless man for money. So, when I make that argument, I'm wrong and making a silly argument that doesn't add up - but when you make the exact same argument, it's well, the correct answer.

[The King in Crimson]

Just because society believes something to be right or wrong, does not make it so in my opinion.

Why?

It is probably because the belief society holds (which may only be a segment of the society) does not align with his personal beliefs.  This is evident with issues like abortion, birth control, etc. 
Society or a group does not make objective morals.  The morals of the individual and groups are subjective.

Exactly. Moral assertions have been reduced to mere individual opinions. Similar to asking for an opinion as to which color you think is the coolest. Why would one answer (say black - the coolest color, btw) be superior or inferior to another (say baby blue...eww)?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

In an atheistic / naturalistic worldview, on what basis can you make a value judgment that a society which embraces slavery is inferior or immoral as compared to one that doesn't?

Because the Bible totally kept slavery from springing up all around the world... oh wait.

You keep talking about inferior morals and immoral and all that stuff.  I say, who gives a fuck.  It's not as if the idea of going to hell or immorality kept people from doing bad shit in the past.  Slavery, crusades, and genocide occurred, even under the watchful eyes of supposedly moral religions and sometimes even perpetuated by them.  So the basis of superior and inferior morals is really only a talking point, one that holds little value in reality.  We can talk all day about who is right, who is wrong, who is moral, who is moral, but in the end, it doesn't matter.  Bad stuff will continue to happen because people are people and no book or non-existant entity is going to stop that.

Why is our societal set of values that abhors slavery superior to a society which adheres to slavery?

Common fucking decency for one. I wouldn't want to be enslaved, so I can assume most other people don't as well.  I'm assuming you're probably not too keen on the whole getting enslaved against your will bit and I'm sure that has less to do with some book somewhere saying that 'getting enslaved is bad m'kay' and more with 'ouch, whips hurt!'

Why is a society that abhors slavery a moral improvement rather than a mere difference?

Because you're not enslaving another living being.  Seems pretty simple to me.

[Scheavo]

Just to make a point more clear that I don't think I made clear:

Omega, you say people shouldn't follow their "Moral compass," but when you get down to it, you think that people shoudl follow their conscious cause that's God. Well, I hate to break this to you, but anyone who says they're following their moral compass is following their conscious.

Religion is irrelevant. Any ethics or morality that it gives is a result of ethics and morality, not a cause of ethics or morality.

[the Catfishman]

Youre not getting a logical answer?  No...you will only feel you arent getting a logical answer if you need to believe in objective morals, and need the answers to fit your beliefs.  The answers you have recieved are clear, concise, and logical.  It is clear you are only interested in answers that fit your view if you feel that you need to keep re-formulating your question in order to get what you think is a reasonable response.

No, I have not been getting a logical answer. For example, evidently unbeknown to you, the responses you have provided are re-affirming my point.

what about the post I made earlier, seems logical to me.