user1991

Thats pretty much what I'm saying. Kinda I wouldn't say they have changed relatively little - I mean, people used to eat eachother, incest - rape -murder. It is not that long ago that you could simply challenge someone to a duel and then proceed to kill them without punishment.. (Moral objectivity = sin = sinful nature of homosexuality according to the Bible) For you to consider homosexuality to be sinful you have to presuppose that: 1) morals exist regardless of humanity 2) Every single word in the Bible is the Word of God 3) God is perfect.

No. My judgment about someone else's morality is because my morality tells me that I should not defer from my morality. Of course that means that I consider their morality incorrect for our time, but I do not consider my morality "absolute". That does not make it absolute. The idea is that morality is cause by social/political/economic influences. I consider my morality "correct within my time". Not absolute. There is a difference. No, whether something is socially acceptable is important. For your argument to be correct, you must first state that moral relativists believe in the idea of "right" and "wrong". I don't. If I stop someone from doing something it is because it is NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. It does not mean that in a few hundred years it will still be not socially acceptable. Who knows, it could. My argument is that social acceptance is in essence, what "wrong" is - whereas you would say that the Bible tells us what is right and what is wrong. I argue that the Bible tells us what was socially acceptable in Biblical times.

The act of doing so is a moral judgment in itself. "Right" and "wrong" do not exist - only what we think of them to be. Just because I consider myself correct, does not mean that something it is absolute. Even if I'm a moral relativist. If I consider myself correct according to the time which I live within - to consider someone elses morals as "correct" would require that I make the moral decision to defer from my own morals in the first place, which would be based upon my morality. And as I consider my morals "correct within my time" - I do not consider them absolute. Arguing your point proves nothing about objective morality. All it proves (if anything), is that a moral relativist has to consider themselves correct within their time in order to not defer from their own morals when making decisions about other peoples' morality. This does not make their morals "absolute." You're trying to project a strawman of the relativist position in order to easily deflect its valid arguments. There is a difference between "right" and "socially acceptable." I can stop someone from doing something because it is not a socially acceptable thing, without me having to consider that thing absolutely WRONG and sinful in nature.

How does a "cohesive view of the natural world"[*] prove that it is of Divine inspiration? It is as much proof of the existence of a God as it is proof of the existence of intellectually superior aliens. And do you believe the entire Bible? You must, if you consider it the word of God, right? If to you, ANY of the Bible, yes ANY of it, is open for interpretation, you must realise that your interpretation is simply you choosing to believe what you want - which would totally undermine the idea of the Bible being "the word of God." [*]Coherent. Infallible. Coherent world view. It cannot be considered coherent when virtually all of it is open for intepretation. If it is open for interpretation, than it cannot possibly be infallible. As said earlier, it cannot have a coherent world view if it is open for interpretation. What about all the contradictions?

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality." Please explain.[/quote It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relative in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses. Okay, this may take awhile, but here's why you're wrong. This argument isn't mine, but whatever. It's a pretty common argument. Forget morality a second, let me use the idea of motion as an analogy. "For the purposes of assigning objective truth conditions, a judgment of the form, P is in motion, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to spatio-temporal framework M, P is in motion. Similarly for other judgments of motion." In order to make a judgment on motion, one must previously assume the "spatio-temporal" framework into the equation. If I said for example "That car is not moving", the non-movement of the car would be relative to the non-movement of the rocks, and trees, houses, etc around it. Reference to said "spatio-temporal" framework is necessary because it is also true that the car IS moving, on the Earth's surface, on a rotating planet, orbiting the sun, ETC. The car is moving, relative to said spatio-temporal frameworks. "Does the fact that all judgments of motion are relative to spatio-temporal frameworks and that there is no privileged spatio-temporal framework mean that one cannot make a judgment about motion? It seems absurd to suggest that it does given the ubiquity of judgments of motion. It would be odd to deny the ability to make a judgment about motion even though all such judgments are relative to a specific spatio-temporal framework, none of which are privileged." You might argue then that, if this is the case, a moral relativist must take note of all moral stances. The judgment whether to defer from one's own moral judgment and take note of others, is in itself a moral judgment. If ones' moral development demands that one should not defer from said judgment, then one would of course, not defer. "For example, imagine that it can be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally wrong to rape a child. Imagine, conversely, that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S, a moral relativist, may acknowledge that raping a child is morally right given Q's moral framework, but if S's moral framework does not demand that she defer to all other moral frameworks, she is obligated to adopt that framework.Further, imagine that it can also be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally right to use force to stop someone from raping a child. If S sees Q attempting to rape a child, it does not matter that S acknowledges that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S acts on the basis of S's moral framework, not on the basis of Q's. If it cannot be inferred from S's moral framework that S must defer to Q's moral framework, then S will act to stop Q's raping of the child." Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider "wrong", as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.

EDIT: I understand what you mean. See later post.

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means. The title really means "Homosexuality: Socially Acceptable?" - because that's really what morality is. BUT, Christians do believe in objective morality, which is why they argue that homosexuality is a "sin", because the Bible says that it is a sin. When you consider that Christians and the religious are the main opponents to homosexual freedom, it is necessary to point out the presupposed flaw that absolute morality actually exists, and to tell them that what we consider "right and wrong" has merely been ground into us through the process of life in a society which considers certain things "right or wrong." The absolutes, murder, rape, etc, most people wouldn't argue that they are wrong (you know what I mean), however subjects such as homosexuality are argued over generally between the religious and the atheistic. I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is not socially acceptable, because it is my opinion that one should be able to do whatever they want to their own body/have relationships with whoever (consensually with adults). The only argument against homosexuality itself[*], is that the Bible considers it wrong. Therefore, the idea of moral relativism is entirely relevant, because to refute the Christian claim, you must refute the very basis of the idea of moral objectivity in the first place. [*]I'm not talking about homosexual parenting or anything - just homosexuality itself. The act of having a relationship with someone of the same gender. Your assertion that my post was unnecessary is unfounded in both reason and logic - I doubt you refute the idea that to prove the idea of "sin" wrong, you must first prove the idea of moral relativism right.

This entire topic is kinda made useless when you consider that right and wrong don't even exist. Unless you believe in objective morality, which doesn't make any sense.

Carlin would be proud :D

You believe in interpretation of the Bible yet still maintain that the Bible is a "rigid moral code", even though interpretation is simply our subconscious choosing of scripture which we already agree with. /thread /religion /the bible

I would do the opposite,to be honest.Never really liked the Indian race,no offence.The ones in Singapore are just... As for personally volunteering to work...Nope,all those were compulsory school things.I wanted to go as a child,but mom and dad weren't free. What?

Well Antonin Scalia and I would agree that the second amendment protects an individuals right to own a gun. It's pretty clear wording. And they can't really appeal the second amendment because that would be unconstitutional. So you might be waiting a while to have a party. I can't understand your argument here. A constitutional right's existence is justified by its... existence? Why can't you altar the constitution? It's been done on many an occasion in US history. Cause guns are our God given right! They're so divine, Jesus Christ would actually be a sniper. He would DEFINITELY approve of gun ownership. And if he didn't, it wouldn't matter, cause it's not like he's God or anythin--- oh wait.

I'm doing something like this next year. Too many people complain about the world without doing anything about it - so I decided to actually do something worthwhile. A couple of my friends have done things like this, one went to a village in the vietnamese countryside to help start up a clean water supply system, and one went to Ethiopia to help giving out aid to ill people as well as help with the process of vaccinations in various villages. Both said that they realised just how lucky they are, being born into a family with a comfortable amount of money. I look forward to it, should be something different. And it actually gives a chance to help people in a REAL way..

That's a misconception many people seem to have. I don't use drugs to escape, I use them to have fun in a different way. I know you're going to say something like "I can have fun without drugs". Well so can I. But I don't always want to have fun without them. I don't really know how to explain it, but there's something really nice about being in your own world where nothing would make sense to a sober person. Exactly - its so amazing to think that this is all only happening in your head, or that a plant can make you feel this way.

I don't need to escape. I'm not addicted in any way. I would have no problem not taking drugs, ever again. I have only had one bad trip ever, yes it was horrible, but I had friends there who made sure I didn't do anything stupid. I was at home, in a controlled environment, and whilst I never want to experience that again, the positive experiences I think have far outweighed that one negative experience. I don't want to turn this into a drug debate or anything, but regarding the legality of it - if someone wants to use it, should they not have that freedom? Sure, if they harm anyone else, then they're prosecuted. But if they're not, what's the big deal? Don't forget, drugs have played a part in some of the most amazing pieces of art/music of all time. They're not all negatives.

You can't buy it if you're under 18, but it quite a bit if you're going for the strong stuff. Like for the equivalent of an 8th of 45x it would cost like $200 or something. But really, all you need is one hit - its not like you'd smoke a joint of it or anything, one hit of 45x wrecks you up.

It's already illegal in some states and it's illegal to sell to anyone under 18. Also, the trip sounds amazing to me. :thumbup: It was absolutely amazing. Just make sure you have a sitter, cause I've heard of people falling down stairs and stuff. Also, I don't see why the thread should be deleted. It's only discussing a drug - I'm not supplying it or anything.

Salvia, is a psychoactive drug that has recently come into the mainstream, used as an entheogen by Shamans for thousands of years. It is also legal. The effects generally don't last long, usually about 10 minutes. I tried Salvia 45x a few days ago, it was my first time. Immediately after taking the first hit, I started seeing shapes. Gradually, everything sort of dissolved, and I could see the molecules vibrating - I kept zooming in on the molecules really fast and it felt as if I was travelling through a tunnel. Slowly that faded into the background, I felt totally out of my body at this point. I was listening to Star Shpongled Banner by Shpongle, and like, I could see the music, it's hard to explain. This golden river of leaves was flowing underneath me, and there were fluffy light blue clouds all around, and I could form objects with my mind. These red and orange spheres starting moving all around, then one became part of me and I felt this searing heat, then a man came out of the blue cloud and put some sort of gel like material on the spheres and they were no longer hot, but they were really shiny. They started spinning really fast, and they all fused into the sun. I was above the Earth, but when I looked down the land on the Earth was in the shape of a smiley face, and it kept changing its face and making a noise that sounded like "oaoaoaoaoaoaoaoaaoaoaoaaaoaoaoaoao". I started moving, getting faster, and I ended up getting to the surface of the sun, but I was in this bubble, and I didn't feel the heat. There were angels in the sun, and at the centre there was this dot that kept moving around in a spiral pattern leaving a glowing train of the most intense white light I have ever seen, I can't even imagine it. Everything became white, all I could see, every part of my vision, was this white light - and I was hearing my own voice, I was just saying "do it, do it, do it. Don't think, ever, just do it. Do it." over and over and over. The white light started changing colours and started getting faster, going through every colour in succession. Then, I started flying above my field of vision and the colours were actually a sphere, and behind the sphere there was nothing. Absolutely nothing, for eternity. And this colour had a force that pulled you in, but once I popped the sort of plasma like material that was holding me in, I just felt like I was floating. I was feeling these vibrations. Everything was black - not black like when you close your eyes, I didn't have any visual noise, it was PURE black. I honestly can't describe it, it was amazing. Eventually, it all started to fade. It felt really instant, like I was suddenly back in reality. I was on the floor, and it had only been 5 minutes - it felt like I had been there for hours. Anyway, what are your opinions on it..? Should it be legal/illegal? If you've done it, what was your experience? Mine was positive, but I've heard that lots of people have had bad trips on it.

And yours don't exist.

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have introduced you. TheTrueNoob, I'd like you to meet Yahweh, the omnipotent master of the universe. It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a (commonly used)name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague.

I think it's quite telling that here in the UK (where guns are controlled really strictly) - we have much better gun crime statistics than over the pond in the USA.

Exactly - probably the best counter argument there. It is a shame that the word "God" has two meanings. I wish the Christian God had a name like Allah or something, because then phrases such as "I believe in God" wouldn't be so vague. People forget this, which is probably why so many Christians make deistic arguments and act like it actually means anything when trying to justify their theistic beliefs.

Because surely an omniscient god wouldn't be able to see through that cunning little ploy? Oh wait... I give up. Seriously. Their faith is immovable. They believe what they want, regardless of anything else. They want to subject their will upon everybody else under the cloak of it being the "will of God." Religion takes advantage of peoples' insecurities and worries. Why do you always hear people say "If you're depressed turn to God" or "If you're in despair turn to God" - and never "If you're perfectly content and happy turn to God" or "If everything in your life is good turn to God." You offer people a bubble in which they can pretend God protects them by blindly believing in the authority of a book of stories that is full of contradictions. You implant into their subconscious this idea of rejecting one's perception of reality and substituting it with the concept of religious thought, something which they believe in simply because they believe in it. What the concept of faith is, is a backbone to which one can eternally return if any of their basic suppositions are challenged within. This cognitive dissonance, for use of a better word, is immediately disabled by the idea of faith. It offers them comfort, knowing that no matter what, they will always have something which they know, in their mind anyway, is certain. Often, by assuming this self-serving cyncism on the outside, they hide their deeper need for meaning - the one thing that is actually the basis for their "faith" in the first place. It is this need for "answers" that is ironically, the one thing that stops us from developing our understanding of life and all its conquests. Regardless of whether or not a God exists, they are living a lie - because their beliefs are backed up simply by their need for beliefs in the first place. What the above quote shows, is that people need something - just anything to hold onto, something that never changes, and never dies. "Faith" offers them this. What they do not realise is that their "faith" is the one thing that is holding us back from actually attaining knowledge that one day, could help us answer the questions that we feel so desperate to answer.

Oh my... are you actually trying to... Nevermind, I'll assume you're not. Nobody is that stupid.

Atheism doesn't say that nothing in the world matters. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. Stop strawmanning. Once you start accepting things without evidence then there are no boundaries to your perception of reality. You can literally assume anything you want. You believe what you want, regardless of reality. Hopefully, you can admit that that is irrational. That's all it takes. Can you not read my post? The general atheists around my school. They're idiots, and if you met them, I'm sure you'd agree. Does my having religion actually hurt you? It's just as irrational of you to believe that your word is the truth, and that everyone else is wrong. That is complete arrogance and narrow-mindedness. No it isn't. It doesn't work like that. All beliefs aren't equal simply because they're beliefs. I don't think you're wrong, just that you're irrational. I try and base my beliefs on evidence as much as possible. I don't deny that a God could exist - I just see no reason to suggest that he does. And if I did, I wouldn't know anything about him so I would see no reason to worship him, pray to him, ask him for things, even consider him in anything I do. The entire concept would be irrelevent. The problem I have with your religion is that there are Christians who would have no problem controlling every single thing in society under the guise of it being the "Will of God." By even accepting their irrational, dogmatic belief, you're enabling them to pretty much do whatever. As to the same-God thing, yes, all monotheist religions essentially believe in the same God. But they all have different variations in tradition, worship, etc. In fact, all monotheism began with Sun-worship, probably Egyptian or early Judaistic. Polytheist religions began as paganism, for the most part. I'd agree with you on that - but they aren't the same now. Christianity believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - something which Islam has a huge problem with. The God may be similar but the path to "reaching him" is completely different - which in turn makes the God different. /quote] And to whoever said "Not all of the Bible is the Word of God" - Who decides which parts are? The reader? Aren't they simply cherry picking their morality and then labelling it as the "Word of God"? How can the Bible EVER be considered a "rigid moral code" if it is up for discussion which parts are to be considered the word of God and which ones aren't? Your interpretation stems from your belief system, so if you read it and then preach the sections you agree with as the word of God all you're doing is trying to subject people to YOUR will by telling them that "God" wants them to act that way. How can you not see this..?