Kant

Yeah, it pretty much does. Sorry. I'm so glad we don't know eachother outside this forum. Why does it matter? Because our beliefs affect our actions, and our actions affect other people. Our beliefs are the most integral element to how we behave and how we treat others. That is why it matters. Unless you don't think how other people are affected by people's actions matters. If that is the case, then I am also glad we don't know each other outside of this forum.

Source?

Yeah, it pretty much does. Sorry.

The communists (who were atheists) did their terrible deeds because the people they were oppressing weren't atheists. In other words, if the people were atheists, they wouldn't have been oppressed. So I think the assumption is true. They did do it because of atheism. Theism recognizes another power besides the government as sovereign, and the atheistic government didn't like that.

Communist Russia. Communist China. Columbine attack. Nero (actually this wasn't chopping of heads, this was burning at the stake... but you know). And I haven't even thought about this yet. Atheism does not equate to communism. The post I quoted doesn't reference atheism. It references anti-religious people. But you're right, atheism != communism, however it is necessary for it, making the communists in quesiton atheists.

Communist Russia. Communist China. Columbine attack. Nero (actually this wasn't chopping of heads, this was burning at the stake... but you know). And I haven't even thought about this yet.

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative. I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do). I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself? Which is exactly the same as your morality. You can beleive it's objective all you like but that doesn't make it objective anywhere except inside of your head. It is exactly the same as moral relativity except you have dilluded yourself into thinking its not by basing it on the Bible. That's circular reasoning. Absolute morality is really relative morality because it's morality is relative? Can you explain this better please? Just because we can't decide what moral actions are doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it is objective because I believe in God, and God is a source of absolute, unchanging truth. Whether or not I can know what that is is irrelevant to whether or not ethics are actually absolute. Being a moral absolutist gives me conviction and reason to act on my moral impulses. Being a moral relativist gives you excuses and reason to not act on your moral impulses. THAT is what I call worthless. And that is my point: why should I spend my time convincing a moral relativist what I think is right when they can just say "oh, well that's just your relative interpretation of it". I want my words and opinions to actually mean something, to have an effect.

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

Actually... there are several anti-adultery legislations. In the US Military for example, it's actually a court-martiable offense, although that's got a few loopholes in it. Quick research shows that in some US states you can be imprisoned for adultery. However, I couldn't find another country that did this. And as both you and I are non-American...

Still an advantage :P I've been doing some research on vegetarianism, and it looks like eating enough eggs and meat supplements make up for most if not all of the nutrition lost from meat. Interesting stuff. But I'm glad you don't consider consent to be the be-all and end-all. Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other?

Just because we have the ability to do something does not make it natural. If that were true then bestiality would be natural, as we have the ability. I do not know either. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not advocating bestiality in any way. I was only pointing out that both bestiality and eating meat ignore the animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s consent. Assassin was arguing that the morality of an action was defined by consent. As you can see, you are bringing necessity in, which is more than just consent, and you are no longer using the same definition of morality as Assassin. My argument is not with you. I agree, consent should not be the only thing taken into account when defining the morality of an action. I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t call it necessary, and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve addressed the natural part of it above. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s circular reasoning. If eating meat is immoral (which you are arguing against) then there are no humane methods of killing animals to eat them. That is an overgeneralized/vague statement, and yes, it is only one case. And thanks for not resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

This argument wasn't with you. This is the problem. Assassin defined an action as immoral because the animal couldn't consent. Using his logic, eating meat is immoral because the animal can't consent. I didn't want to argue with you, I brought up my point, assassin said it was legit when taken by itself. This isn't between you and I, it's between assassin and I and he agreed with my point. You're just being spiteful now. Using his prior definition of an immoral action, eating meat is immoral. I don't care what your beliefs are because they're completely irrelevant to mine and assassin's conversation. I obviously believe eating meat is okay, I was just pointing out a contradiction in assassin's moral system/beliefs. Is that so hard to understand? If it isn't, then why are you being spiteful and insulting me? It seems whenever you try and argue with me or anyone else in this board you resort to ad hominem attacks and it's wearing me thin. Right. So if someone put a gun to your head and said "choose death or rape", you'd choose death? It was two posts between assassin and I, one that went to show that arguing from consent is inconsistent with his moral beliefs. It is relevant, you're just unable to see that. You're the one that is continuing to argue a point that assassin has already (kindly) conceded. Again, my argument is not with you. No, I'm not question God's judgment. I believe bestiality is wrong, and I believe eating meat is okay. I haven't been giving my personal views, I am just showing the inconsistencies in assassin's moral definition by using his logic. Again, you're completely misunderstanding the intent of my argument. So please, stop arguing with me, because you have no idea what I'm trying to argue and you're just making yourself look bad. If you've noticed, assassin hasn't been trying to argue against this because he's intelligent and humble enough to see my point, even if he does think it is irrelevant to the current topic.