My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, the Bible shaped Western Society...Okay. And what did it shape it with? Our laws? Okay. And what does that mean, that if they didn't shape our laws, that the laws wouldn't be there and we'd all be murderous crazy people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not saying it directly, but it's fully implied. You just won't SAY it because you know how stupid it sounds, but even when you disect what you ARE saying, it comes out as that. There's no other way to slice it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, the Bible shaped Western Society...Okay. And what did it shape it with? Our laws? Okay. And what does that mean, that if they didn't shape our laws, that the laws wouldn't be there and we'd all be murderous crazy people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not saying it directly, but it's fully implied. You just won't SAY it because you know how stupid it sounds, but even when you disect what you ARE saying, it comes out as that. There's no other way to slice it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd love for you to point out exactly where we so much as implied that, when in fact we have been purposefully avoiding any appearance of that belief, since we do not believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowhere have I said that morals come from Christianity. I believe that morals come from God, and have been instilled in all humans, as I said ealier. (They need not necessarily come from my God, but there must be an absolute, transcendant source for there to be any real morality.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty baffling that you guys think Jewish/Christian laws have = absolutely morality since the beginning of time, when infact, they were even AROUND back then and people STILL knew it was wrong to do such things. I've said it before, but it seems you all like to ignore it...Take Egypt for an example. When someone stole, they'd remove their hand. When someone murdered, they were delt with. Did Egyptians follow your morals? No. Infact, they enslaved Jews. Obviously they didn't need the Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, did they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of your supporting arguments support my point, not yours. If people still knew that those things were wrong even before Judaism/Christianity, then doesn't that make it seem like Judeo-Christian morality is absolute morality? If Egyptians merely knew certain things were right and wrong, without the Bible telling them so, doesn't that imply that those morals are absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If God is the source of absolute morality, and He has instilled that morality in mankind, then doesn't it make sense for people to follow that morality to some degree even if they don't know of the Judeo-Christian God?

And I am saying you're wrong. I don't need God to slap my wrist and say "Bad boy." in order to not stab someone in the face and rape their girlfriend. I know that stuff isn't cool in the first place. If you can't comprehend that someone doesn't need God in order to find that wrong, then I truely pity you...Because if you didn't believe in God, you'd be quite the dangerous character, then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't find it sad that you have to have a reason to not be a jerk? I mean, a reason besides just common sense?

And I am saying you're wrong. I don't need God to slap my wrist and say "Bad boy." in order to not stab someone in the face and [assault] their girlfriend. I know that stuff isn't cool in the first place. If you can't comprehend that someone doesn't need God in order to find that wrong, then I truely pity you...Because if you didn't believe in God, you'd be quite the dangerous character, then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't find it sad that you have to have a reason to not be a jerk? I mean, a reason besides just common sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once more, you're attacking arguments that we never made, and which we have flat out said we were not making. We've already clarified this exact same issue, so I'd appreciate it if you actually read my posts.

 

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, the Bible shaped Western Society...Okay. And what did it shape it with? Our laws? Okay. And what does that mean, that if they didn't shape our laws, that the laws wouldn't be there and we'd all be murderous crazy people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not saying it directly, but it's fully implied. You just won't SAY it because you know how stupid it sounds, but even when you disect what you ARE saying, it comes out as that. There's no other way to slice it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd love for you to point out exactly where we so much as implied that, when in fact we have been purposefully avoiding any appearance of that belief, since we do not believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nowhere have I said that morals come from Christianity. I believe that morals come from God, and have been instilled in all humans, as I said ealier. (They need not necessarily come from my God, but there must be an absolute, transcendant source for there to be any real morality.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's pretty baffling that you guys think Jewish/Christian laws have = absolutely morality since the beginning of time, when infact, they were even AROUND back then and people STILL knew it was wrong to do such things. I've said it before, but it seems you all like to ignore it...Take Egypt for an example. When someone stole, they'd remove their hand. When someone murdered, they were delt with. Did Egyptians follow your morals? No. Infact, they enslaved Jews. Obviously they didn't need the Bible to tell them what was right or wrong, did they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of your supporting arguments support my point, not yours. If people still knew that those things were wrong even before Judaism/Christianity, then doesn't that make it seem like Judeo-Christian morality is absolute morality? If Egyptians merely knew certain things were right and wrong, without the Bible telling them so, doesn't that imply that those morals are absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If God is the source of absolute morality, and He has instilled that morality in mankind, then doesn't it make sense for people to follow that morality to some degree even if they don't know of the Judeo-Christian God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhhh, or perhaps absolute morality has nothing to do with a silly book, and everything to do with what all humans just find to be wrong. I don't believe in God, and I'll be the first one to tell you that watching a video of someone being killed is probably the nastiest thing you could ever watch. You, for some reason, assume and assert "God did it!" into this, where as I ask "Why is that automatically the case?" when I clearly don't believe in God, and can clearly see that humans find certain things to be wrong and certain things to be right automatically. When someone LACKS these qualities, it's called "mental illness", not "lack of God in their life"...and for good reason.

And I am saying you're wrong. I don't need God to slap my wrist and say "Bad boy." in order to not stab someone in the face and [assault] their girlfriend. I know that stuff isn't cool in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't comprehend that someone doesn't need God in order to find that wrong, then I truely pity you...Because if you didn't believe in God, you'd be quite the dangerous character, then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe in God, and I'll be the first one to tell you that watching a video of someone being killed is probably the nastiest thing you could ever watch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Uhhh, or perhaps absolute morality has nothing to do with a silly book, and everything to do with what all humans just find to be wrong. I don't believe in God, and I'll be the first one to tell you that watching a video of someone being killed is probably the nastiest thing you could ever watch. You, for some reason, assume and assert "God did it!" into this, where as I ask "Why is that automatically the case?" when I clearly don't believe in God, and can clearly see that humans find certain things to be wrong and certain things to be right automatically. When someone LACKS these qualities, it's called "mental illness", not "lack of God in their life"...and for good reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you're supporting my point. I'm saying that God has instilled morals into all humans. You're saying that all humans find certain things right, and certain things wrong. I've never said that humans have to know the Bible or have "God in their life" to be moral. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite - that atheists can be, and usually are, moral people, and that even those who have never heard of the Judeo-Christian God share a common morality. (Though, as I said earlier, I do believe that this morality can be eroded or forgotten, if there is no real source for that morality. You cannot keep the fruit of absolute morality forever if you cut off the root of that morality.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your way of arguing baffles me. You say exactly the same things I do, then disagree with me. Please actually read my posts, instead of making baseless assumptions about what I'm saying.

And I am saying you're wrong. I don't need God to slap my wrist and say "Bad boy." in order to not stab someone in the face and [assault] their girlfriend. I know that stuff isn't cool in the first place. If you can't comprehend that someone doesn't need God in order to find that wrong, then I truely pity you...Because if you didn't believe in God, you'd be quite the dangerous character, then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't find it sad that you have to have a reason to not be a jerk? I mean, a reason besides just common sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*sigh* heres the deal tigra, where not trying to put down what you believe, we are just defending what we believe. If you would stop for a minute and realize that then no flame war would be neccasary.

We're not saying the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like your second to last post...What you'd have me believe is that God instilled us all with these values, weither we believe in him or not. So you expect to me accept that God has instilled me with values. Okay, fine...But when I ask "Where is your proof for God?" you seemingly like to argue that we have morals, thus there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's circular logic at best, and a theory without proof at worst, but...'kay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you just can't accept that people know what's right and what's wrong WITHOUT any intervention from a devine being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intarweb, there is no society where stealing is acceptable amongst all it's people. I don't even have to look it up to tell you that is false. If tehre is a society of people who all steal, they'd all be pissed off at eachother for stealing from eachother. As for killing people, some people, like the infamous cannibals and stuff, do that as part of religion or whatever. Don't knock their views n' stuff. But in all seriousness, there are also no societies where murder is fine and dandy amongst it's people. They may murder OTHER societies, but if you're going to argue that that means they accept it as "right", then you're saying Western society says it's cool to do too...You know...Iraq and all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But nevermind, you guys had me defeated from the get-go, considering the "God did it because it's there, and it's there because God did it!" defense just can't be broken, no matter how dumb it is... :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"God did it because it's there, and it's there because God did it!" defense just can't be broken, no matter how dumb it is... :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, i can think of better ways of putting it. but, yea, pretty much. you believe we cam from nothing, i believe we were made, call it even. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"God did it because it's there, and it's there because God did it!" defense just can't be broken, no matter how dumb it is... :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, i can think of better ways of putting it. but, yea, pretty much. you believe we cam from nothing, i believe we were made, call it even. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have no idea what I believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you want to get technical, you believe you came from nothing aswell. Or...Dust, was it? And a bone for the female? You just happen to believe a big sky-giant pushed the snowball down-hill, where as Evolutionists (I'm assuming you were refering to) believe science created everything. Though there is at least some proof of that, I don't know how much of that I believe either, but I don't believe in the Christian God so much. Or Islam...Whatever it may be, they all debunk themselves by the simple fact that there are so many of them and they all say they're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"God did it because it's there, and it's there because God did it!" defense just can't be broken, no matter how dumb it is... :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, i can think of better ways of putting it. but, yea, pretty much. you believe we cam from nothing, i believe we were made, call it even. :-w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have no idea what I believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you want to get technical, you believe you came from nothing aswell. Or...Dust, was it? And a bone for the female? You just happen to believe a big sky-giant pushed the snowball down-hill, where as Evolutionists (I'm assuming you were refering to) believe science created everything. Though there is at least some proof of that, I don't know how much of that I believe either, but I don't believe in the Christian God so much. Or Islam...Whatever it may be, they all debunk themselves by the simple fact that there are so many of them and they all say they're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im sorry, you right, i shouldnt have said that, i really dont know what you believe. i apologize.

Intarweb and Astraline, you have made lots of interesting points, and too many to address individually at the moment, so forgive me for this rather broad overview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right insofar as that our sense of absolute morality is nearly always driven by religion. I won't presume that you're both absolutists personally, but a point i'd like to address it that the concept of an absolute right and wrong does lead to a slight problem. Homosexuality, in the Bible is an absolute wrong, a violation of God's nature, if you will. The fact that it seems to have stronger reasons against it on a scientific principle I suppose is irrelevant. Yet, is it always wrong to allow someone to make love to a member of your own sex? According to the absolute right of God, yes, and yet homosexuality is becoming more accepted in society today. Is it always wrong to put a terminally ill patient out of her misery at her own request? Again, with your absolute right of God, yes it is wrong, but most non-religious people would value the right of control over one's life as a trump card to any religious concept of the sanctity of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely consequentialism and utilitarianism offer a more satisfying conclusion to your absolute right and wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To say that I have no reason to judge someone's actions to be right or wrong in an abstract sense is I suppose fair enough. But in a practical sense, I believe the rule of law established by a democratically elected party is a good enough substitute for me. As Tigra pointed out, laws have been around as long as mankind has existed, with their laws often rooted in religion. Very few people worship the Roman Gods nowadays, yet their right and wrong could still be considered valid. Who gave it to them? To say God ingrained it in us all is a completely unproveable/disproveable apparent trump card.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communism establishes absolute rights and absolute wrongs based not on religion but on what is right for the good of the country. In that sense, patriotism could be considered an absolute. "There's was not to reason why, there's was but to live and die" was a reasonable summing up of the view maybe a hundred years ago on the role of soldiers. Conscientious objecteurs were looked down on with scorn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In summary, my point is, morality exists throughout society and the natural world, with or without religion. Therefore, it must be a concept that can be explained without religion. Absolute morals probably can't be explained without religion, but they are not necessary to lead a respectable life.

Don't you mean Religion/athiesm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It really doesn't make sense to say that agnostism is wrong, seeing as there is nothing to claim wrong in it lol. Its the belief that with our current knowledge of certain subjects anything is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A little more on subject, I personally classify athiesm as a religion, I believe science explains everything dealing with our plane of reality quite well, though that doesn't necessarily mean it can explain everything, it may be able to, though with our current knowledge on things, that idea is as proven as regular religions.

Don't you mean Religion/athiesm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It really doesn't make sense to say that agnostism is wrong, seeing as there is nothing to claim wrong in it lol. Its the belief that with our current knowledge of certain subjects anything is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A little more on subject, I personally classify athiesm as a religion, I believe science explains everything dealing with our plane of reality quite well, though that doesn't necissarily mean it can explain everything, it may be able to, though with our current knowledge on things, that idea is as proven as regular religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism is considered religion while agnosticism is the absence thereof. This topic is actually just for all future religious debate.

Most Muslims are either

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) Cowards

 

 

 

B) Supportive of extremists

A few things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I KNOW im going to heaven when i die, you guys dont.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species.

Fundamentalist Christianity is bunk because in its world anything is satanic. "Communism is satanic!" "Harry Potter is satanic!" "Rock [or any other type of music that doesn't sound like a barbershop] is satanic!" "Femenism is satanic!" "George Bush is a satanist! [picture of someone who looks like George Bush but really isn't doing a 'satanic' gesture]!" "Runescape is satanic and occult!" "Atheism is pure dilusion and bigotry and SATANISM!" "Lord of the Rings is satanic!" "Computers are satanic!" "My teacher has demons in her!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Indiana Jones is satanic!" "UFologists are satanists!" "Masonry is satanic!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The list goes on and on...

 

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sociological factors. If I kill someone, their friends and family aren't going to take it too kindly. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing a person, however that doesn't mean that other people will find it acceptable. If you are actually upset over a murder regardless of your social standing towards the victim, then you couldn't get anywhere in life; you would be permanently upset. People get killed all the time, it only matters to you when it is socially relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people find it wrong to eat animals, while others see it as a right of living; who's to say what's right? What do your real morals say on the eating of meat, the falling of trees for permanent residence, the removal of minerals from the ground, the dyeing of clothing or posting on the internet? To suggest that there is a real set of morals which govern the goodness of every action is absurd.

Fundamentalist Christianity is bunk because in its world anything is satanic. "Communism is satanic!" "Harry Potter is satanic!" "Rock [or any other type of music that doesn't sound like a barbershop] is satanic!" "Femenism is satanic!" "George Bush is a satanist! [picture of someone who looks like George Bush but really isn't doing a 'satanic' gesture]!" "Runescape is satanic and occult!" "Atheism is pure dilusion and bigotry and SATANISM!" "Lord of the Rings is satanic!" "Computers are satanic!" "My teacher has demons in her!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Indiana Jones is satanic!" "UFologists are satanists!" "Masonry is satanic!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The list goes on and on...

 

 

 

Yu-Gi-Oh is satanic!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that post is a joke, right? Please tell me someone didn't really say that, and that that sidenote isn't actually true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(By the way Bari: this is EXTREME fundamentalists we're talking about. We're not talking about you, so don't take it personally :P .)

 

Fundamentalist Christianity is bunk because in its world anything is satanic. "Communism is satanic!" "Harry Potter is satanic!" "Rock [or any other type of music that doesn't sound like a barbershop] is satanic!" "Femenism is satanic!" "George Bush is a satanist! [picture of someone who looks like George Bush but really isn't doing a 'satanic' gesture]!" "Runescape is satanic and occult!" "Atheism is pure dilusion and bigotry and SATANISM!" "Lord of the Rings is satanic!" "Computers are satanic!" "My teacher has demons in her!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Indiana Jones is satanic!" "UFologists are satanists!" "Masonry is satanic!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The list goes on and on...

 

 

 

Yu-Gi-Oh is satanic!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that post is a joke, right? Please tell me someone didn't really say that, and that that sidenote isn't actually true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(By the way Bari: this is EXTREME fundamentalists we're talking about. We're not talking about you, so don't take it personally :P .)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post is real, it's a quote from the 'fundies say the darndest things' website.

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is no absolute good and evil, then you do not have any right to tell another person that he is doing something evil. He's no more correct or incorrect than you are, so you're just trying to force your own subjective beliefs on him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sociological factors. (1)If I kill someone, their friends and family aren't going to take it too kindly. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing a person, however that doesn't mean that other people will find it acceptable. If you are actually upset over a murder regardless of your social standing towards the victim, then you couldn't get anywhere in life; you would be permanently upset. People get killed all the time, it only matters to you when it is socially relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people find it wrong to eat animals, while others see it as a right of living; who's to say what's right? What do your real morals say on the eating of meat, the falling of trees for permanent residence, the removal of minerals from the ground, the dyeing of clothing or posting on the internet? (2)To suggest that there is a real set of morals which govern the goodness of every action is absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Now you're back to morality based solely on fear of punishment, on which the general consensus here is that it is not a good enough reason to be good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. An absolute moral system does not require a law governing every action. It requires, at least, only one absolute moral law. I believe there are far more than one moral laws, but I certainly don't believe that there is a moral law for every single action. Even in the Bible, some decisions are left up to personal conviction, such as eating meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not saying the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like your second to last post...What you'd have me believe is that God instilled us all with these values, weither we believe in him or not. So you expect to me accept that God has instilled me with values. Okay, fine...(1) But when I ask "Where is your proof for God?" you seemingly like to argue that we have morals, thus there is a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's circular logic at best, and a theory without proof at worst, but...'kay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) I'm not sure why you just can't accept that people know what's right and what's wrong WITHOUT any intervention from a devine being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Where have I said that? I've said that in order for there to be any absolute morals, there must be something transcendent, and I believe that thing to be God. My God adequately explains morality, and absolute morality cannot be explained apart from a transcendent source of morals. Morals are not my proof for God, nor is God my proof for absolute morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What if someone knows a different set of what's right and wrong than the rest of people do? The majority of people know that killing is wrong. A minority know that it is right. If morality is subjective, what justification does the majority have for telling the minority that it is wrong? The majority is forcing its views on the minority, even though its views are no more right or wrong than the minority's. Of course, if there is no absolute morality, who's to say that it's wrong to oppress a minority?

Intarweb, there is no society where stealing is acceptable amongst all it's people. I don't even have to look it up to tell you that is false. If tehre is a society of people who all steal, they'd all be pissed off at eachother for stealing from eachother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your wrong. Anthropologists have discovered several tribes in the Pacific where stealing is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for killing people, some people, like the infamous cannibals and stuff, do that as part of religion or whatever. Don't knock their views n' stuff. But in all seriousness, there are also no societies where murder is fine and dandy amongst it's people. They may murder OTHER societies, but if you're going to argue that that means they accept it as "right", then you're saying Western society says it's cool to do too...You know...Iraq and all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Would I? No, because I believe those things to be wrong. But in the absence of a God, if a man believes those things to be good, what right do you have to stop him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 find that interesting. He has no right to question someone elses view? Everyone has the right to question others views because we all do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is no absolute good and evil, then you do not have any right to tell another person that he is doing something evil. He's no more correct or incorrect than you are, so you're just trying to force your own subjective beliefs on him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to questioning others, not forcing what you think is right onto them. You can't say no one has the right to question something; that's being a dictator. Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Anyway, aside from that, perhaps there are a set of absolute morals and they manifest themselves in the form of our concious which came about through evolution. I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof as I haven't actually done a whole lot of reading into it, but it may be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My intellectual dishonesty? You guys are the ones suggesting that if the Bible was never written, we'd all be a bunch of mad savages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. What we very clearly said is that if God didn't exist, there would be no REASON to follow a moral code.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No reason without god, huh? Sorry, not quite. Morality could be the result of evolution as it, in most cases, maximises strength and lifespan. So yes there is a reason and it's called the survival of the species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if I don't believe survival of the species is a good thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species.

 

 

 

I was referring to questioning others, not forcing what you think is right onto them. You can't say no one has the right to question something; that's being a dictator. Now I probably didn't adress Intraweb's commet corrctly, come to think of it. Anyway, aside from that, perhaps there are a set of absolute morals and they manifest themselves in the form of our concious which came about through evolution. I'm not saying that this idea is foolproof as I haven't actually done a whole lot of reading into it, but it may be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So your argument is that you put words in my mouth? I never said anything about "questioning," now did I?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you believe dosen't affect the purpose of evolution. Again, perhaps, from and evolutionary perspective, morality was developed to aid in the survival of the species. Essentially, the whole point of any form of evolution is the survival of the species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you're suggesting that there is absolute morality as defined by evolution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you don't know. Your comparing yourself to Jesus Christ. No one knows untill we are judged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what the Bible says kiddo. How about you only talk about things you know about from now on?