Satenza

And even God = Absolute Morality is assumption.

There are two assumptions made by people who claim God = absolute morality. God exists. God's laws are moral.

We can define morality on utilitarian terms. For example; Murder is wrong. Why: If murder was accepted as right universally the unhapiness it would cause would outweigh the pleasure of the murderers. So Murder is wrong because it retains the greatest hapiness fo the greatest number.

Yeah, a delayed response is basically a no response. I still think we should go with my idea, and can't see any reason it wouldn't work since it completely fits with all of the current rules. Keep prodding those admins!

Here; I don't have a weird beard like whoever that guy is. Also had alec baldwin and Lance Bass (whoever that is)

Thats ridiculous, anyone can hypothesize.

So you're not going to answer my question Magekillr?

Lots of guys probably do. However that isn't being themself now is it? And why should they? So they can conform to your view of morality, which from what I have seen is questionable at best? Give me a break.

Get rid of morality for five seconds and answer the question.

So I assume that you chose to be hetrosexual? Did you think one day. "Now, I have a choice" or was it just natural to be hetrosexual? If you could choose, right now again between the two, would you even consider homosexuality? (if the implication of your religious beliefs did not stand). If not, I fail to see how you can draw the conclusion it's choice.

So basically if god said it was ok to kill each other, it would be ok? God is unchanging. Therefore he won't say that, as he has already said that murder is wrong in his commandments. Law can change, God cannot. So your limiting Gods ability making him unable to change, if this was the case how would you describe the paradigm shifts from the Old Testement to the New?

She does have the final approval on all laws, however all that is required is her signature. Usually she doesn't even write that herself either and someone does it for her. Her role in law has been described as a rubber stamping excercise.

Yes I did. Im not talking to you in the same thread of debate as you have with these other people.

No I'm not, as evident of my saying this: But if you want to go down this road... under that route, if A is moral for person 1 and -A is moral for person 2, then person 1 would have to believe that person 2 is wrong. If this is the case, then person 1 is being "arrogant." I disagree, does that make me arrogant? Disagreement does not equal arrogance. If we accept there is no absolute morality, by that people would realize that their moral view is not absolute. While they think it to be correct, that does not mean it is. They would understand that humans are falliable not divine, and so their views can be falliable.

I remember watching a programme where a gay man went and spent a couple of days with them. He obviously didn't tell him he was gay, it was sickening the people who spread hate.

Locke, your assuming that if absolute morality does not exist then subjective morality would become universal. It's true that A and -A can't both be moral, however if morality isn't universal (since it is subjective to the individual) then for one person A can be moral, and the next -A can be moral. The whole point of subjective morality.

Take religion out of morality and you still have morality, just not divine and therefore absolute. As in, we can objectivley question what is moral and not immoral. Which is a hell of a lot better than leaving morality down to interpretations of ancient scriptures. Morality is not absolute even now with all the religions, if it was everyone would share the same morals or the majority would. Which is not the case. Edit: Morality needs to not be absolute, even christian morality has changed. Take slavery as an example. If morality stayed the same the world would be a very cruel place.

Oh shut up.

Billie Jean is not my lover.

Murder, [assault], suicide, genocide. Sounds like there are many things that are absolutely bad. Not to say everything is black and white, but to assert that nothing is absolutely good nor absolutely bad is more naive than his statement. And your views on someone's morality isn't what determines if they are good or bad. There are some things that are definitely wrong. There are many atrocities committed in the name of religion, but to use that to say that religion is 100% bad and wrong is just plain not true. Immoral acts are bad acts in the eyes of religion, thats why they are called immoral. If a religion promotes a act which harms no one as immoral then that act is deemed as bad. That is against the liberty of the individuals who do such acts which are harmless. I disagree with abolsutes, im not saying that murder isn't bad, rape isn't bad and genocide isn't bad. However to say they are absolute is simply because I do not like them. The only grounds we have to ban them is because all infringe on the individuals liberty like some religious morality does to an extent. The states main purpose is to protect it's citizens from harm, and those acts harm us.

Don't be so nieve. I don't have to live my your morals you mean, and your morals may be good and bad depending on my views. Nothing is absolutley good and absolutley bad. Thats why we have law that protect citizens from harm. Your view is so irrational that your morality is absolutley good that you can't even see the bad that can come from it to individuals who are not like minded to you.

It is not just about what other people think, it's the phycological imprisonment absolute morality from divine word entails. I'm not saying simply all christians fundementalists or liberalists do not accept people who don't follow their morality, I'm saying that since religion is so personal to the individual rules that are universal towards the condemning of immoral acts that don't hurt anyone hold no weight. Except from the individual who has been in some cases indoctrinated to beleive they are wrong, bad and will end up with eternal suffering in hell. A christian beleives the bible to be the truth, and fact from Gods own hand. It condems many acts which is deems to be immoral (even though they don't harm anyone) and therefore plants a stigma attached to those acts into christians heads. Again, i see people who "pick and choose" what rules in their religion to follow as a lot more rational, however things like Christianity need you to beleive it all or to beleive nothing of it. Picking common sense out of their and using it as if it is divine is ridiculous. Bari: You're not talking about the future of religion either, your going into a "everythings to perfect to be created by chance" argument which has nothing to do with the future of religion.

Religion supresses people? What context are you refering to? In the past, perhaps religion has been fought over the belief that there is a 'right' religion. But in reality all religion does is express peace and tranquility and goodwill to all men, nowadays that it much clearer. People like yourself like to look at how people have behaved in the past you aren't actually addressing the religion itself. Its not like you get arrested if you have belief in another religion anymore. Religion is supressing in the sense it enforces absolute morality down upon it's followers. I.e. A christian homosexual man may resist his ability to be himself because it goes against the supposed morality of the church. It does not enforce him in as much as if he is himself he will get arrested but he will feel shame, remorse and facing the idea of hell when he die's for being himself. Even though in being himself he should be happy, as long as those acts do not harm anyone else within society. Fear of the afterlife holds people prisoner to their own nature, and that is what religion preys on to various extents. Religion supresses liberty. Liberty is the most beautiful thing in the world.

Religion supresses people. The argument it allows people to be who they are is ridiculous as it makes people follows rules which restrict their liberty.

God is a tool used to stop the infinite regress. Even if we prove the big bang, and what started and caused it the "Nothing comes from nothing" argument will still be valid, and there will still be flaws to science in religious people's eyes.