Intarweb

Sorry. I'm confused as to the entire point of your post then. But Astra's point is in counter to the idea that absolute morality doesn't exist. You can't counter his point by agreeing with him that absolute morality does exist. That doesn't make logical sense.

So your argument is that you put words in my mouth? I never said anything about "questioning," now did I? So you're suggesting that there is absolute morality as defined by evolution? That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on?

Your wrong. Anthropologists have discovered several tribes in the Pacific where stealing is acceptable. Wrong again. There are tribes in Ecuador where killing other people is actually how you GET into Heaven. It's not considered a bad thing at all.

You only KNOW that stuff because you were raised in a culture that has been influenced by Judeo/Christian values for over a 1000 years. How do you explain all the areas in the world who have not been influenced by a religion that preaches against killing and stealing, and so they view it as something that is acceptable? You just apparently don't know about very many cultures outside of where you grow up. How do you explain the Pacific countries where stealing is acceptable because their civilization wasn't taught not to steal for thousands of years because of a religion? How do you explain South/Central American cultures where killing was acceptable when they hadn't been taught not to kill for thousands of years? You only know what society has taught you as wrong, and that society has been influenced by over 1000 years of Judeo/Christian values. Because you were RAISED to see killing as that based off over 1000 years of Judeo/Christian values. There are plenty of places in the world who were not raised under those beliefs who are not sickened by that kind of stuff.

No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code. If the Bible wasn't written, we would most likely have ideas about right and wrong based off of an entirely different religion. But if no God and absolute morality exists, why would you follow one moral code over another? There are plenty of cultures all over the world who do have the basic belief that it is "wrong" to do things that we believe it's wrong to do, such as kill certain people and steal. Our societies moral code HINGES on Christianity whether you like it or not, and what YOU believe is inherently wrong is because Christianity has shaped our Western world for over 1000 years. No. I'm not saying it because it's not what we're suggesting. We're suggesting that morality has to have a root in something religious, something absolute. For the WESTERN world that is Judeo/Christian values. For other places, it's elsewhere. Your reading comprehension blows.

You're missing the ENTIRE point. We're not saying Christianity/Judaism are the basis for every form of morality that has come up. In fact, we've said multiple times that it is blatantly untrue to even suggest that. The commentary about Judeo/Christian values is that they have shaped the Western world, and forms of morality found elsewhere in the world also have religious roots. Not Christian roots - religious roots. Whether that be Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religion or indigenous belief. You are grossly misrepresenting our point. You should be ashamed of yourself for such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

That is absolutely key. Without a standard of right and wrong, better or worse - you have no right to tell anyone that their view that murder is good is unacceptable.

I'm interested in these groups who have no spiritual beliefs at all, yet remain so primitive. Can you PM me the information?

I'm waiting for John McCain to send a team of men into Iran to make sure these men are being treated poorly during their "interrogations."

Nor did I deny that some values are apparent in other cultures - but those values still come from something that is typically non-secular. I didn't say they were - you're misquoting me. I very clearly said that moral values can be the same in other cultures. However - not a single moral value transcends EVERY culture and the root of moral values is almost always some form of religion. My point was that his list of "secular" values is only the product of his Judeo/Christian upbringing for over a 1000 years. I NEVER said that ALL values come from Judeo/Christian beliefs and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I did.

You're right. But that's also coming from someone who has grown up in a society that has been controlled by Judeo/Christian beliefs for over a thousand years. Where/why do you think you have come up with those ideas? Everyone here agrees that you shouldn't harm other people because everyone here grew up in a culture dominated by Judeo/Christian values. Elsewhere in the world where other values dominate the culture (sometimes similar, sometimes not) that is different.

really? let me think, theres like 100000 laws in the united states that all just enforce 10 things. know what they are? the ten commandments. id say that if everyone followed them the world would be BETTER not worse? "Keep no other Gods before me" and "Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy" are not exactly found anywhere in US laws. Nor should they. I'll give you the other 8. Are you Catholic, by chance?

There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what would happen according to the Chaos Theory. An infinite number means there is an infinite number of good, and infinite number of bad consequences. If there are both an infinite number of good and bad, then that cancels out rendering it completely pointless to discuss the possibility.

I think I'd have to agree with you actually. Stalin did much more damage in the long run, creating more damage overall, is essentially the point you're making, correct?

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad. If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.) But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad. It could still be worse, regardless of whetever it happened or not. I know that what they did is bad, but if they wouldn't have done that, right now we could be talking about how much better today's world would be if Hitler and Stalin had done all that. Right. But it also could have been better. The problem with discussing it under your theory is the chances of it being better are equal to the chances of it being worse, therefore, those two chances cancel each other out and we are left discussing what actually happened. Not would've, could've, should've.

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad. If something worse would've happened if they wouldn't have existed, they would be good. So we don't know if they're bad or not. (There are different degrees of bad. They did something bad (event A), but if they wouldn't have done that something worse would've happened (event B), event A would be good compared to event B.) But that didn't happen so that isn't worse. Whereas what they did was bad.

Except you don't know what would have happened without them and what they did was bad. So they're bad.

That sounds to me like a justification of opinion. I wasn't wrong with a technicality. I said he got elected and that takes brains. I never said he was fairly elected, did I? It takes brains to get elected PERIOD. All I did was restate my point that I had made earlier. You don't make any sense.

Do you think if Hitler was smarter in the way he handled himself, he would have ended up just as evil in Stalin?

So you admit to acting that way? No.

And why would you think, based on the first post, that is what the topic starter was wondering about? Wait. His ancestors were born after him? That's a bloody miracle! And I expect to be called out on it when I post wrong information, which is why I was not offended when someone tried to explain to me that Hitler wasn't elected democratically, despite it being completely irrelevant to my point.

He was appointed by Papen as Chancellor - and regardless of whether or not he was fairly elected as President doesn't detract from the point which was that he had to be smart to get there. You were responding to the assertion that he was smart. I was defending that statement because it took brains to do what Hitler did. People should quit posting information that is wrong.

Quit being pedantic. Why would the topic poster ask if they were worse for their ancestors? That doesn't even make sense. If you can't figure out the question from the first post, there's no use explaining it to you. Worse for the ancestors...honestly? I think they were equally as bad. And...no thanks.

Thanks for the history lesson. Does that make Stalin worse or better than Hitler do you suppose?

Really? Are we talking about the same Stalin who died in 1953, and the same "Space Race" that started around 1957? And how do you suppose we wouldn't have nukes, which were dropped on Japan in 1945? Surely that isn't the result of the "Space Race."