Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
Sign in to follow this  
xAxelx

Your standing on religion

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

You athiests who claim to be good people because you do good things, but then you don't believe in any supreme being are really quite hypocritical of yourselves. Let me explain....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This would mean that whatever the strongest impulse in us is we ought to follow it. The problem with this is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. Morality is more than just our physical nature. It seems absurdly false that the sermon on the mount came from primordial ooze. You cannot get something like morality from something like nature, herd instinct, or evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We often learn morality through social convention, but that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We learn things also like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. It is strange that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality, but not individuals. It is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, this would also lead to other problems like all societies being morally equal (hence Nazi society is as equally moral as Mother Theresa), and moral progress within a society would be impossible to measure. How could we say society improved, if the standard is set by society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are evil, since they oppose what is acceptable according to social convention. Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really claim to do good things, I just do things. If you perceive them to be good, then they are good. If you perceive them to be bad, well then they are bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the part in where I feel your argument fails. You can't get morals from "Herd instinct" alone because we don't 100% rely on instinct. If we were unable to reason and perceive then I would agree with you that you can't possibly develop the moral system we have from instinct. However instinct is not the only thing we rely on to make decisions, we use instinct in combination with reason and perception.

 

 

 

There is never a time for self-sacrifice (it goes against our instinct to preserve our life for one thing) I don't think there are many situations where self-sacrifice is the morally correct thing to do (e.g. one of the few examples for self-sacrifice is for organ donations if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re terminally ill which occurs a fair bit). Please explain to me why sacrifice is morally just. This is beside the point anyway, you lump evolution and survival of the fittest in the same category of instinct when they are completely different concepts. By the way why do you think we can't get moral's from nature, after all we got minds to think for ourselves from nature, it's not like the brain isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t made up of stuff from nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral values can come out of evolution and is quite easy to verify by just from looking at the population as a whole.

 

 

 

For example If you wanted a life partner would you look for someone that:

 

 

 

A. Is nice to you and treats you with respect

 

 

 

B. Makes your life a living hell

 

 

 

C. Might just kill you for no reason

 

 

 

The vast majority of people would choose A. and as a result are more likely to find a partner to have offspring and hence survive. It is all about maximising potential partners and choice A. would be a good choice because it creates more opportunities rather then the harm B. and C. will have. You can also be B. or C. (and there are people who like options B. and C. over A.) but you are less likely to find a suitable partner and hence less likely to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The qualities that we want in other people depend entirely on our DNA. For example you might not think someone who regularly cuts your skin open with a knife is a good partner but if our DNA was different and gas built up under our skin regularly and the only way to get rid of it is slowly through a cut (or risk dying from your skin bursting) then having a partner that released the gas for you would be a desirable trait. This is just an example which turns a negative trait into a positive one due to evolution. Can you tell me one trait that the majority of people look for in partners which is harmful rather then beneficial for survival? If you can find one of these negative traits then it is a sure sign that evolution is not the only answer, which brings me to the next part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another determining factor of morals is, as you put it social convention. This is similar to evolution as if you follow the social convention then you are even more likely to find a partner. If it is ingrained on every mans mind that blonde women are the best then being a blonde woman is going to get you further then not being blonde. But being blonde isn't going to get you far in all parts of the world where culture is different. Maybe having long straight black hair is good; it is all relative to the culture. That being said a Nazi society is just as morally acceptable as any other society. It may be repulsive to you but I bet all the NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s thought being a Nazi was the best thing ever otherwise why would they want to be NaziÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s in the first place? It's not like God said being a Nazi is good in Germany until the world decides it's bad, it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also doesn't make sense that there was a civilisation before Christianity. According to you that there is no right or wrong without God, how could people have lived before Christianity; it would have been full of random murders and neglect and we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have seen anything as organised as a city. How about all the cultures that are not Christian how did they get their morals to be so similar to ours. There are probably a couple more that I have forgotten about but letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s see what you have to comment on about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It also doesn't make sense that there was a civilisation before Christianity. According to you that there is no right or wrong without God, how could people have lived before Christianity; it would have been full of random murders and neglect and we wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have seen anything as organised as a city. How about all the cultures that are not Christian how did they get their morals to be so similar to ours. There are probably a couple more that I have forgotten about but letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s see what you have to comment on about this.
Heh, obviously you don't really know much about the Bible or Christianity. If you're gonna fight Christians, it'd be wise to know a little about what they believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not like there's been a period of time without God. God has always been around, and always will. This is to hard for our human brains to comprehend. As the bible puts it "he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The beginning of christianity does not mean the beginning of God or Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally the chosen people of God were the Jews (all other races and cultures stemmed from them, through things like the tower of babel, which was when all the different languages were created by God and struck down random people who were building it with the new languages to put a stop to the building of the tower), but when Jesus came in 0 BC to spread the word of God, in short the Jews didn't believe he was the messiah and they crusified him (through the Romans). This caused the Jews to no longer be Gods chosen people, and even today they are still waiting for their Messiah to come. This is when Christianity started (back then it was no way like it is today).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is the history of Christianity in a nutshell according to the Bible. Today Christianity is totally different, many people falsly claim to be men of God and then they go and do completely bad things (eg molest choir boys). Thus given ALL Christians a bad name. Also now a days you've got all your different denominations all with their own stupid slight variations and beliefs etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is my belief that everyone should read the Bible, or at least learn a little bit about it. It'd only do you good, you can't play ignorant forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The beginning of christianity does not mean the beginning of God or Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is my belief that everyone should read the Bible, or at least learn a little bit about it. It'd only do you good, you can't play ignorant forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if it didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make complete sense I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t literally mean no God. How could people live by Christian morals if there was no scripture, messiah or promotion of the religion (in effect there was no God for these people regardless if he was there or not as he had no ability to communicate his presence) for which to tell the people how they should behave? You may as well just say the invisible force of Evolution made them act that way and later on Charles Darwin wrote a book about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m that ignorant of Christian beliefs? After all God creating the universe is probably the most told story from the bible, do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve lived my life without hearing that story? Stop dodging the questions and flaming me over some minor detail, I probably wouldn't be able to write the rest of my reply if I didn't at least know a little about Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohh yeah how many other religious texts have you read bits of? Jewish, Muslim Mormon, Scientology etc. Ohh but everyone has to read the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know more about Christianity then you give me credit for, maybe I even participated in it? Gasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ohh yeah how many other religious texts have you read bits of? Jewish, Muslim Mormon, Scientology etc. Ohh but everyone has to read the bible.
I could really see you bringing that one up. :roll: Yes I have read parts of the Koran and Torah. Scientology? That is based on lies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m that ignorant of Christian beliefs? After all God creating the universe is probably the most told story from the bible, do you really think IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve lived my life without hearing that story?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know more about Christianity then you give me credit for, maybe I even participated in it? Gasp.

Hmmm, you make it out to me that you think you are learned in the Bible? Yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then why do you keep bogging yourself down with silly questions such as this "How could people live by Christian morals if there was no scripture, messiah or promotion of the religion (in effect there was no God for these people regardless if he was there or not as he had no ability to communicate his presence) for which to tell the people how they should behave?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have already explained this in part, according to the Bible, there were no other religions / cultures in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry if it didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make complete sense I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t literally mean no God.
Yeah, that's the trouble with the internet, you've got no tone or facial expression to help you convey meaning, therefore you must take what they say literally (you said no God several times).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop dodging the questions and flaming me over some minor detail, I probably wouldn't be able to write the rest of my reply if I didn't at least know a little about Christianity.

I haven't answered to many of your arguements because I don't have enough time, they don't make a whole lot of sense and I prefer to talk about this kind of stuff in real life. Arguing it over a forum is really quite pathetic because a lot of the meaning in our arguements are lost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see this turning into one helluva flame now. It's just going to turn into

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Person A: I'm right!

 

 

 

Person B: No, I'm right!

 

 

 

Person A: No you're not, I'm right!

 

 

 

Person C: You're both wrong, and I'm right!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Retreats to the media board*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feel free to add me on msn though if you'd like to chat more... But I mustn't spend anymore time on this at the moment. I need sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You athiests who claim to be good people because you do good things, but then you don't believe in any supreme being are really quite hypocritical of yourselves. Let me explain....

 

 

 

[...]

Your very argument is based around the existance of a pre-defined right and wrong. Atheism (though some atheists might, for reasons they will have to explain themselves) does not support the supposed existance of this "divine morality". When you are born, you are very near a blank slate. Over the years, you *will* grow into an adult Human, and you will look highly similar to the rest of us. The way you move around, the way you speak and the way you interact with the world will be similar to other members of your species. Considering your mind will grow aswell in this manner, it is logical to assume your thoughts will be similar. Add the fact that you are raised in a society where a set of morals are already in place, and it becomes obvious that you will soon accept these morals as your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does that mean there is truly objective justice? I do not believe this, and I think you will find that very few atheists do aswell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does this mean I cannot use the expression "He deserved it"? No. Because as I have already stated, I do not believe in objective justice. Since that leaves only subjective justice, I will refer to that instead. Instead of actually believing (which is very arrogant I might add) that there is some sort of divine rule that makes me righteous, I create my own sense of justice and hope that it will be similar to the morals of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And since you can refer to subjective justice, "I did a good thing" makes a lot of sense, because in the person who speaks it's mind, it will indeed be a good thing. There are of course other versions of this, such as believing that justice is decisions which the majority would agree on, and hence base it on the opinion of a mass instead of the opinion of one, but the principle is identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How one can expect flawed philosophy to be proof of a divine being is completely beyond me. While we can debate if objective justice is real or not for all of eternity, the short version is that there is no proof whatsoever of the existance of a universal moral law. Nor is there any proof against it. That leaves us at the same point as always, with two conflicting points of view. Either refusing to believe something there is no proof of, or insisting on believing it untill the non-existance is proven. Once we're at that point agan, the theory becomes rather uninteresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you are born, you are very near a blank slate. Over the years, you *will* grow into an adult Human, and you will look highly similar to the rest of us. The way you move around, the way you speak and the way you interact with the world will be similar to other members of your species. Considering your mind will grow aswell in this manner, it is logical to assume your thoughts will be similar. Add the fact that you are raised in a society where a set of morals are already in place, and it becomes obvious that you will soon accept these morals as your own.

 

 

 

And thus you have the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Add the fact that you are raised in a society where a set of morals are already in place" - At one point in time there would not have been any morals assuming that evolution is how we got to where we are today. So when did morals all of a sudden appear? Did one cave / apeman all of a sudden have a brilliant idea that some things are right and some things are wrong? Please explain this to me. :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll be wise enough to start this in the thread it is suposed to belong, however I doubt DaN's lack of maners is suposed to be discussed here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to answer your question about how your comments were disrespectfull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion creates narrow minded morons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that needs any further explanation, DaN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is That disrespectful?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its ok for him to single people out and say they have no purpose (see other topic) to live but its not ok for me to point out a fact?!?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could have said it otherwise, your wordpick isn't very good. And just because he was acting disrespectfull doesn't justify your being disrespectfull. That's the same as "but he did it too!" which is something 4 year old children say when they did something wrong, you do realise you were the one calling Blazer's act childish, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THis furthers my point narrow minded is not accepting others belifes and beliving yours is THEONE and that others dont have a right to their belifes not to mention calling peoples lives pointless because they dont belive what you belive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that's his religion that hardly has got anything to do with accepting your opinion or whatever. He was never on about accepting or not accepting, he just doesn't believe in what you are saying. I don't know what you're expecting from him? Lose his religion? He was just defending his religion, just like you are.


21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And thus you have the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Add the fact that you are raised in a society where a set of morals are already in place" - At one point in time there would not have been any morals assuming that evolution is how we got to where we are today. So when did morals all of a sudden appear? Please explain this to me. :?

Morals were there when we were born, it is as simple as that. You do not ask when your leg just suddenly appear, you ask when and how Humans appeared. As such, it makes perfect sense that morals are a part of us at birth and have always been a part of us at birth, for as long as mankind has existed. With modifications over the ages, certainly. So when and how where Humanity created? That is a question that neither you, nor I, can answer. We can make guesses without any proof whatsoever, but we cannot know. My theory on Creation isn't particularily relevant for this discussion, so I see no reason to go into detail. So to answer your question, they both came simultaneously. Your theory does not in any way prove the existance of a divine being, it only illustrates a belief and backs it up with "truth untill the opposite has been proved". Once again, this is what religion is about. Once again, I will claim to see no point in discussing it further, as we might just aswell discuss if God is true or not. The debate would be identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"Add the fact that you are raised in a society where a set of morals are already in place" - At one point in time there would not have been any morals assuming that evolution is how we got to where we are today. So when did morals all of a sudden appear? Did one cave / apeman all of a sudden have a brilliant idea that some things are right and some things are wrong? Please explain this to me. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See my first post on the subject, basically if the opposite gender isn't enjoying what you are doing you better change your action otherwise you are not having kids with them. Not to mention you will probably get assaulted by someone defending their spouse from your distasteful advances on them. It's all trial and error, you hit someone and they run away to hide. You know next time not to hit them if you want them to hang around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead of actually believing (which is very arrogant I might add) that there is some sort of divine rule that makes me righteous, I create my own sense of justice and hope that it will be similar to the morals of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how it is arrogant to appeal to a self-existant, universal law that is above everybody, but it is not arrogant to claim the right to create your own "sense of justice"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say two different stores are robbed. The owner of the first store says, "It's wrong that somebody robbed my store because it goes against the law of the country." The second store owner says, "It's wrong that somebody robbed me because it inconveniences me and makes me mad." Which one of those is being arrogant? Certainly it isn't the one who is appeals to a higher authority, but the one who uses himself to define morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's far less arrogant to believe in a divine law than to believe in subjective morality, for subjective morality is dependent on what we want or think.


Punctuation.gif

 

"In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Instead of actually believing (which is very arrogant I might add) that there is some sort of divine rule that makes me righteous, I create my own sense of justice and hope that it will be similar to the morals of others.

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how it is arrogant to appeal to a self-existant, universal law that is above everybody, but it is not arrogant to claim the right to create your own "sense of justice"?

Certainly. Because by appealing to a supposed universal law you are claiming to be right. By creating your own sense of justice you do no such thing, you are instead claiming to be of an opinion. For example, belief in a Universal Law would allow for the following expression: "I am right. This is not my opinion, this is the unalterable truth". Surely you can see how that would appear arrogant, mm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universal Right is extremely dangerous, because it allows people to do horrible things and justify it. Subjective Justice allows people to do horrible things aswell, but never to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And just because he was acting disrespectfull doesn't justify your being disrespectfull. That's the same as "but he did it too!" which is something 4 year old children say when they did something wrong, you do realise you were the one calling Blazer's act childish, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WASNT disrespectfull in the least please explain what you mean by disrespectfull!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He on the other hand outright flammed and insulted a specific group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly I belive your just looking for an argument with ME otherwise you could let blazer respond for himself.


~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say, let people believe what they want to, as long as they respect other peoples beliefs and do not attempt to brainwash others into following.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some religions are just silly, like Muslims aren't allowed sexual gratification by themselves, Christians with their gay bashing, Jihadi's with their extremist views on suicide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*shrugs* The world's a crazy place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And just because he was acting disrespectfull doesn't justify your being disrespectfull. That's the same as "but he did it too!" which is something 4 year old children say when they did something wrong, you do realise you were the one calling Blazer's act childish, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WASNT disrespectfull in the least please explain what you mean by disrespectfull!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claiming a relligion creates narrow minded morons is disrespectfull. Calling people morons because they believe something is disrespectfull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He on the other hand outright flammed and insulted a specific group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I didn't see him flame and insult people. And if he did it, atleast he did it in heat of discussion, so that wouldn't be too weird. You on the other hand came out of nothing, without any reason, just looking for a fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly I belive your just looking for an argument with ME otherwise you could let blazer respond for himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not looking for an argument with you, I just disagree and found it rude what you said. Blazer was away and the posts got removed, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't point that out.


21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You athiests who claim to be good people because you do good things, but then you don't believe in any supreme being are really quite hypocritical of yourselves. Let me explain....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did i was a good person!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i believe in what the catholic regilion is publising.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anti-women - **** Up

 

 

 

anti-human rights - How'd u mean

 

 

 

anti-contraception - I Agree

 

 

 

anti-freedom of choice - If everyone did want they wanted the world would be in alot more havok than now!

 

 

 

anti-sexual freedom (*, *, bi, tg etc) - Its not natural/I do not have a problem with gay/bi people but its not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some religions are just silly, like Muslims aren't allowed sexual gratification by themselves, Christians with their * bashing, Jihadi's with their extremist views on suicide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you with your generalising. Yeah, go on. I suppose all buddhists are fat and wear orange dresses all day, right? Telling people they can believe what they want to believe and then generalising everyone who follows a religion to be an extremist is a great way of looking at things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(In case the sarcasm in this post is not obvious, I suggest you stop being an American. Yes, that statement is self-reflective)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime I just wish some evangelical christian would just come up to me and change my mind on religon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I envy the people who can follow this "God" blindly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And just because he was acting disrespectfull doesn't justify your being disrespectfull. That's the same as "but he did it too!" which is something 4 year old children say when they did something wrong, you do realise you were the one calling Blazer's act childish, I hope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I WASNT disrespectfull in the least please explain what you mean by disrespectfull!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claiming a relligion creates narrow minded morons is disrespectfull. Calling people morons because they believe something is disrespectfull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He on the other hand outright flammed and insulted a specific group of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I didn't see him flame and insult people. And if he did it, atleast he did it in heat of discussion, so that wouldn't be too weird. You on the other hand came out of nothing, without any reason, just looking for a fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly I belive your just looking for an argument with ME otherwise you could let blazer respond for himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not looking for an argument with you, I just disagree and found it rude what you said. Blazer was away and the posts got removed, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't point that out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a fact religeon creates narrow minded moron Am i not allowed to state a clear fact? Its like saying chineese are asian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"blazer wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you believe in nothing, you have no purpose in life other than to party hard, screw as many chicks as you can (to ensure your genes is passed on) and then die when you're time is up. Wow, what a bleak outlook... If our kids are being brought up to not believe in a god, no wonder there are more suicides, school shootings, murders and bombings then ever before... Because hey! THERE AREN'T ANY RULES!! "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could you miss that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stop ignoring what you dont want to see


~Dan64Au

Since 27 Aug 2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, whatever you want man, there just isn't a point in debating anything with you. You just start bashing without ANY reason to provoke a fight in another topic, and then you are going to act all innocent with your so called 'facts' and so. I can't believe I actually wasted my time on you. Pathetic. we.gif


21o4pav.jpg

Signature by Maurice Sendak

When the stars make you drool just like a pasta fazool, that's amore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a fact religeon creates narrow minded moron Am i not allowed to state a clear fact? Its like saying chineese are asian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that would have to be the most narrowminded moronic thing i have read on this thread and i hope you take a second to sit back and think about just how much thought goes into what you write on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey bro! i feel the same thing you do! but i still believe! but i am tempted!

 

 

 

i dont so much care if you were athiest buddhist hindu whatever! i might be catholic but i wish too unite all christains! how the hell was it that when the romans were killing christains the christains could live among each other not just catholics! oh no christains which means others! how did they live among each other? now we would be lucky if a catholic didn't shoot a baptist in the head because of his/her religion! well i will tell you something! ashes ashes! we all fall down! was it really a plaque? where is the scientific proof god wasn't warning us? and how are we so much like the romans? others will not destroy us! the only thing that will destroy us is ourselfs! yes i awakened too these questions quite a long time ago! although... it has been a long time... and i still don't know how too solve this problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Instead of actually believing (which is very arrogant I might add) that there is some sort of divine rule that makes me righteous, I create my own sense of justice and hope that it will be similar to the morals of others.

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how it is arrogant to appeal to a self-existant, universal law that is above everybody, but it is not arrogant to claim the right to create your own "sense of justice"?

 

 

 

Certainly. Because by appealing to a supposed universal law you are claiming to be right. By creating your own sense of justice you do no such thing, you are instead claiming to be of an opinion. For example, belief in a Universal Law would allow for the following expression: "I am right. This is not my opinion, this is the unalterable truth". Surely you can see how that would appear arrogant, mm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Argh, this never sits well with me, and I'm going to come up with an answer this time :P you'll see! His object example clearly portrays how your view can be considered arrogant, and you're calling people who call upon something that they *did not* create themselves arrogant. Either way arrogance is irrelevant to what is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Universal Right is extremely dangerous, because it allows people to do horrible things and justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Justice allows people to do horrible things aswell, but never to justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming morals are relative:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.


summerpngwy6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Universal Right is extremely dangerous, because it allows people to do horrible things and justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law.

 

 

 

And how would you know it is true? You just assume? Just like everyone else who believes in an absolute moral Law? They contradict eachother - which is right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Justice allows people to do horrible things aswell, but never to justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming morals are relative:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

 

 

 

It's not ridiculous, it means everyone is entitled to an opinion. The law is formed based on the common denominator of morals amongst the majority of a country's population, and you are judged on that. In the same way, sometimes judges find people guilty or innocent based on the law, while they themselves disagree with that (one of the reasons it's so hard to be a judge).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See also Matthew 7:1-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, for those wondering who think I can't be a Christian if I don't see God's Law as universal: I do believe it is 'right', but I know that I believe - I don't know for sure. In the meantime, every other human being has just as much right as I do to believe in another set of morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Universal Right is extremely dangerous, because it allows people to do horrible things and justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law.

 

 

 

And how would you know it is true? You just assume? Just like everyone else who believes in an absolute moral Law? They contradict eachother - which is right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how they contradict each other, and what exactly are "they'? :confused: Sorry for not understanding what you meant there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective Justice allows people to do horrible things aswell, but never to justify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming morals are relative:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them.

 

 

 

It's not ridiculous, it means everyone is entitled to an opinion. The law is formed based on the common denominator of morals amongst the majority of a country's population, and you are judged on that. In the same way, sometimes judges find people guilty or innocent based on the law, while they themselves disagree with that (one of the reasons it's so hard to be a judge).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See also Matthew 7:1-7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Might I ask what that passage has to do with what you said? "Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure you use, so it will be measured unto you."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, if you believe that there is a universal moral law which everyone is accountable to, then what's wrong with judging people according to it, since you yourself are judged according to it? It declares others guilty just as it declares you guilty. As a Christian, this is where God's grace and the death of Christ come in - they enable you to avoid the punishment for moral guilt, since Christ took that guilt. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Their opinion may be wrong - I know I've had and do have many wrong opinions - but they're entitled to their own opinions no matter how incorrect they may be. It's their right to be wrong. Note that I don't mean to sound arrogant, since I make all those same mistakes.


Punctuation.gif

 

"In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.