Do YOU believe in God?

[Anesthesia]

Hate to jump in here, but I have some questions for you. :P As a moral relativist, you don't believe in right and wrong. Period. So do you believe that breaking laws is okay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laws are based on the judiciary's view of what is right and wrong. It is okay from CERTAIN moral standpoints to break the law, for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave's wife needs a drug to cure an illness that will kill her if she doesn't get it within 2 months. Mike owns a company who produces the drug, but sells it for an astronomical price which Dave could never afford. Dave steals the drug to save his wife's life. The law says it was wrong because he stole, in my eyes it was right because you can't put a price on life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand the point that laws are in place by civilization and so if we break them, we should be punished. But is it wrong to break the laws? Afterall, the laws are something put into place by the majority's will, but if there is no right and wrong, then breaking the laws is not morally wrong, correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, not correct. It depends on the law and the circumstances. Obviously murder is wrong according to everyone but Charles, who murders a guy who put his son in hospital. Charles thought it was not morally wrong to do it, but the majority in this case would disagree - but it's up to the individual to decide if it was right for him to have done that or not in their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question is not whether or not you think you should be punished for it, but do you think that if I killed your parents I was doing something wrong or was I just breaking a law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If my parents were threatening your life (perhaps by attacking you immediately) I'd expect you to defend yourself. That isn't to say I'd gladly accept my parents death. People always use killing as an example but it's such a poor one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And furthermore, if nothing is ever considered wrong (you claim to believe in no absolute)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I claim to believe that there is no universal standard by which all actions can be measured, not that there is no 'wrong'. There is right and wrong in every single person's minds, but it is them who will judge it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So is right and wrong determined by the majority, or is determined by whoever is the strongest? Or are those the same thing and we should look at majority from an international perspective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is determined by the individual. What happens is determined by how powerful they are...

[Astralinre]

No, I believe your point was that no atheist can be a good person by your values if his beliefs are true. The only difference with an atheist's values is that the person is judged as good or not by everyone else individually as opposed to one central label.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allow me to quote the original post:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, an atheist cannot ever be a good person if his beliefs are true. Without an eternal, external standard (God) that determines true good and evil, no person can be truly good. There is no real morality, only made-up, subjective rules. In a materialist worldview, who's to say that feeding the homeless is any better than slaughtering and eating them? Both are simply forms of matter and energy moving around; there's no real difference between good and evil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: It is inconsistant for an atheist to claim to be a good person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see nothing in there where I mentioned by own personal morals. All I spoke of was good in absolute, universal terms. You're reading your own opinions about me into my post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

without an infinite-personal being, there can be no real morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you make of Holyoake's arguments then that we can indeed deduce a set of universal morals from purely secular utilitarian maxims?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm afraid I've never heard it, so would be so kind as to explain it to me?

[Anesthesia]

I see nothing in there where I mentioned by own personal morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't mention your morals either, I said your values - meaning your standards (a subtle difference, where values can apply much more widely than morals alone). Your values dictate that there is a universal scale of morality, for example. They might also say that spending time learning rather than working earlier in life will pay off in the long term - they aren't just morals, if you know what I mean?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Laws are based on the judiciary's view of what is right and wrong. It is okay from CERTAIN moral standpoints to break the law, for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave's wife needs a drug to cure an illness that will kill her if she doesn't get it within 2 months. Mike owns a company who produces the drug, but sells it for an astronomical price which Dave could never afford. Dave steals the drug to save his wife's life. The law says it was wrong because he stole, in my eyes it was right because you can't put a price on life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said its okay from certain moral standpoints to break the law. I assume you still believe that you should be punished for breaking the law then - and you only personally believe its right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, not correct. It depends on the law and the circumstances. Obviously murder is wrong according to everyone but Charles, who murders a guy who put his son in hospital. Charles thought it was not morally wrong to do it, but the majority in this case would disagree - but it's up to the individual to decide if it was right for him to have done that or not in their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why that's not correct so let me rephrase my question. I am not talking about whether not he should be punished for breaking the law, I'm asking whether or not "Charles" did anything morally wrong by killing someone. Is that wrong? Or is it just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If my parents were threatening your life (perhaps by attacking you immediately) I'd expect you to defend yourself. That isn't to say I'd gladly accept my parents death. People always use killing as an example but it's such a poor one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why its a poor example. Let's say they aren't threatening my life. I see them walking down the street and don't like their clothes so I murder them. Is that morally wrong, or just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I claim to believe that there is no universal standard by which all actions can be measured, not that there is no 'wrong'. There is right and wrong in every single person's minds, but it is them who will judge it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what I said. You don't believe in an "absolute" or as you put it "universal standard." I'm just attempting to clarify your position: Is murdering someone for no good reason morally wrong, or just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is determined by the individual. What happens is determined by how powerful they are...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. So this statement makes me believe that you think me murdering your parents for absolutely no reason is not morally wrong. Is that correct? (Notice: I asked the same question over and over. Its really the only thing I am trying to understand.)

[Astralinre]

 

I see nothing in there where I mentioned by own personal morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't mention your morals either, I said your values - meaning your standards (a subtle difference, where values can apply much more widely than morals alone). Your values dictate that there is a universal scale of morality, for example. They might also say that spending time learning rather than working earlier in life will pay off in the long term - they aren't just morals, if you know what I mean?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I wasn't talking about my own values, I was talking about the effect that metephysical assumptions have on ethical assumptions.

[Anesthesia]

Argh, it seems like you didn't take my post in at all. You are asking me whether things are right or wrong, that would only be my opinion on those specific matters as opposed to how they are judged by everyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said that there is no universal standard and that we all judge things OURSELVES. If you murdered someone because you didn't like their clothes then you most likely thought it was an okay thing to do. If a passerby also didn't like their clothes then they might think it's alright as well. However, I don't think it was right - NOT based on a universal standard, but because it's what I think from MY viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for Charles, like I said: it depends who is judging it whether it is morally wrong or not. I think it was, his family might not agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The punishment issue is a complex one. Punishments must exist to satisfy the moral majority. If someone breaks the law, then most people think they must be punished either as an act of retribution or individual deterrent - to stop them doing something that the same majority of people considers to be wrong. I think that the law isn't there to decide what is right and wrong, but to keep order - however some will still think its a dictation of what's morally wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject:

 

 

 

Anesthesia wrote:

 

 

 

Laws are based on the judiciary's view of what is right and wrong. It is okay from CERTAIN moral standpoints to break the law, for example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dave's wife needs a drug to cure an illness that will kill her if she doesn't get it within 2 months. Mike owns a company who produces the drug, but sells it for an astronomical price which Dave could never afford. Dave steals the drug to save his wife's life. The law says it was wrong because he stole, in my eyes it was right because you can't put a price on life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said its okay from certain moral standpoints to break the law. I assume you still believe that you should be punished for breaking the law then - and you only personally believe its right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

No, not correct. It depends on the law and the circumstances. Obviously murder is wrong according to everyone but Charles, who murders a guy who put his son in hospital. Charles thought it was not morally wrong to do it, but the majority in this case would disagree - but it's up to the individual to decide if it was right for him to have done that or not in their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why that's not correct so let me rephrase my question. I am not talking about whether not he should be punished for breaking the law, I'm asking whether or not "Charles" did anything morally wrong by killing someone. Is that wrong? Or is it just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

If my parents were threatening your life (perhaps by attacking you immediately) I'd expect you to defend yourself. That isn't to say I'd gladly accept my parents death. People always use killing as an example but it's such a poor one...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why its a poor example. Let's say they aren't threatening my life. I see them walking down the street and don't like their clothes so I murder them. Is that morally wrong, or just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

I claim to believe that there is no universal standard by which all actions can be measured, not that there is no 'wrong'. There is right and wrong in every single person's minds, but it is them who will judge it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what I said. You don't believe in an "absolute" or as you put it "universal standard." I'm just attempting to clarify your position: Is murdering someone for no good reason morally wrong, or just against the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

 

 

It is determined by the individual. What happens is determined by how powerful they are...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. So this statement makes me believe that you think me murdering your parents for absolutely no reason is not morally wrong. Is that correct?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read what I said, I gave the example that if they were immediately threatening your life then it would'nt be morally wrong IN MY OPINION. Of course if it was for 'no reason' then it would be morally wrong in my opinion and the vast majority of opinions.

[Guest GhostRanger]

a lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did read your post, I took everything in, I understand exactly what you're saying, and I don't like the patronizing tone. But I will continue. (Maybe the way I wrote it confused you - you do tend to pick at the exact wording)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my understanding is that you believe if I kill someone because I think its okay, then its morally right (for myself) to do so. You might believe differently, but since I'm the one judging my own actions - it is morally right Afterall, YOU can't judge my actions and therefore what YOU think doesn't matter. If I think its right and I'm the one doing it, then its right)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is your stance, right?

[dorker42]

I believe in God. The thing is, you have to have faith to believe in God. If you have no faith, you're not a believer.

[dwarfie76]

I'm afraid I've never heard it, so would be so kind as to explain it to me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

George Jacob Holyoake was an English orator in the 1800s. Imprisoned for blasphemy in 1841 he coined the term "secularism" to describe his beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following is taken from "Principles of Secularism" (1870)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secularism is the study of promoting human welfare by material means; measuring human welfare by the utilitarian rule, and making the service of others a duty of life. Secularism relates to the present existence of man, and to action, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life--having for its objects the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest perceivable point, as the immediate duty of society: inculcating the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or Christianity: engaging its adherents in the promotion of human improvement by material means, and making these agreements the ground of common unity for all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service. The Secular is sacred in its influence on life, for by purity of material conditions the loftiest natures are best sustained, and the lower the most surely elevated. Secularism is a series of principles intended for the guidance of those who find Theology indefinite, or inadequate, or deem it unreliable. It replaces theology, which mainly regards life as a sinful necessity, as a scene of tribulation through which we pass to a better world. Secularism rejoices in this life, and regards it as the sphere of those duties which educate men to fitness for any future and better life, should such transpire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Secularist guides himself by maxims of Positivism, seeking to discern what is in nature--what ought to be in morals--selecting the affirmative in exposition, concerning himself with the real, the right, and the constructive. Positive principles are principles which are provable. "A positive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

page 12 precept," says Bishop Butler, "is a precept the reason of which we see." Positivism is policy of material progress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is the available Providence of life. The problem to be solved by a science of Society, is to find that situation in which it shall be impossible for a man to be depraved or poor. Mankind are saved by being served. Spiritual sympathy is a lesser mercy than that forethought which anticipates and extirpates the causes of suffering. Deliverence from sorrow or injustice is before consolation--doing well is higher than meaning well--work is worship to those who accept Theism, and duty to those who do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerity, though not errorless, involves the least chance of error, and is without moral guilt. Sincerity is well-informed, conscientious conviction, arrived at by intelligent examination, animating those who posses that conviction to carry it into practice from a sense of duty. Virtue in relation to opinion consists neither in conformity nor non-conformity, but in sincere beliefs, and in living up to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conscience is higher than Consequence.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All pursuit of good objects with pure intent is religiousness in the best sense in which this term appears to be used. A "good object" is an object consistent with truth, honour, justice, love. A pure "intent" is the intent of serving humanity. Immediate service of humanity is not intended to mean instant gratification, but "immediate" in contradistinction to the interest of another life. The distinctive peculiarity of the Secularist is, that he seeks that good which is dictated by nature, which is attainable by material means, and which is of immediate service to humanity--a religiousness to which the idea of God is not essential, nor the denial of the idea necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Vide Mr. Holdreths' papers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

page 13 VII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly all inferior natures are susceptible of moral and physical improvability; this improvability can be indefinitely secured by supplying proper material conditions; these conditions may one day be supplied by a system of wise and fraternal co-operation, which primarily entrenches itself in common prudence, which enacts service according to industrial capacity, and distributes wealth according to rational needs. Secular principles involve for mankind a future, where there shall exist unity of condition with infinite diversity of intellect, where the subsistence of ignorance and selfishness shall leave men equal, and universal purity enable all things--noble society, the treasures of art, and the riches of the world--to be had in common.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since it is not capable of demonstration whether the inequalities of human condition will be compensated for in another life--it is the business of intelligence to rectify them in this world. The speculative worship of superior beings, who cannot need it, seems a lesser duty than the patient service of known inferior natures, and the mitigation of harsh destiny, so that the ignorant may be enlightened and the low elevated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which, coupled with the ideas in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is where I derive my opinion that a solid foundation for a universal secular morality can be derived.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a nutshell:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know that actions which cause me suffering are bad (to me). I also know that actions which relieve my suffering, or cause me to be happy are good (to me).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know that you, and everyone else, is a lot like me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can deduce that actions which cause you sufferring are bad (to you) and that actions which alleviate your suffering or make you happy are good (to you).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we agree that actions which cause suffering are bad, and actions which relieve suffering or lead to happiness are good, we can determine whether an action is 'good' or 'bad' by the amount of suffering or happiness it creates - across the entire population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So while me stealing your wallet may make me slightly happy to get a free lunch. It would make you very upset. It would also cause others not directly affected to become anxious that their wallets may be stolen. We can say that stealing your wallet would be an imoral thing to do.

[Anesthesia]

 

a lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did read your post, I took everything in, I understand exactly what you're saying, and I don't like the patronizing tone. But I will continue. (Maybe the way I wrote it confused you - you do tend to pick at the exact wording)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my understanding is that you believe if I kill someone because I think its okay, then its morally right (for myself) to do so. You might believe differently, but since I'm the one judging my own actions - it is morally right Afterall, YOU can't judge my actions and therefore what YOU think doesn't matter. If I think its right and I'm the one doing it, then its right)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is your stance, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the last time, no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every person has an opinion of what is right and wrong. They judge everyone around them constantly, whether what they're doing is right according to the individual, or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not gonna try to explain any more because it seems you can't understand it - whether it's through my explanations or otherwise I don't really care... It's just too late at night now and I need to go to bed.

[Astralinre]

Explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, dwarfie, I think I see where you're comming from now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically follow the "Golden Rule" that Christians believe in, namely "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but you follow it for logical reasons, not religious ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that those work pretty well in practice, but I think it still agrees with my Schaeffer quote that we are left with situational ethics. It's not absolute morality; it still depends on the situation. Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

[dwarfie76]

[Correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically follow the "Golden Rule" that Christians believe in, namely "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kinda. What makes me happy may not make you happy. What causes me to suffer might actually alleviate suffering in others - like paying my taxes. It's probably more in line with the hippocratic oath "above all, do no harm" than Christ's new commandment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that those work pretty well in practice, but I think it still agrees with my Schaeffer quote that we are left with situational ethics. It's not absolute morality; it still depends on the situation. Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

 

 

 

Only up to a point. Certain actions may be deemed 'good' or 'bad' depending on the situation at hand, but the overriding principle remains constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take the example mentioned earlier of stealling a drug you can't afford to buy to cure a terminally ill relative. Certainly stealling the drug alleviates the suffering caused by the disease, and also the grief felt by the family. But it causes suffering in the owner of the pharmacy who has had his goods stolen, anxiety among other pharmacists that people will steal their goods to cure their relatives, and it will cause the drug companies to factor losses from theft into their profit margins making the drugs more expensive meaning even fewer people will be able to afford them in the long run. Weighing up the suffering alleviated and caused across the entire population we can still call this an imoral act. Although we should probably not judge it as harshly as my stealling your wallet to pay for my lunch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, if there was a plague sweeping the earth, and scientist held the cure, but he wasn't going to hand it over unless control of all the governments of the planet was handed over to him, along with the population of the earth becoming his personal slaves. Breaking into his house and stealling the cure so that other scientists could replicate it and save the earth's population would be moral because it would alleviate a greater amount of suffering than it caused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doesn't provide for specific instructions in every circumstance, we have to use our capacity for rational thought to explore the possible consequences of our actions and determine the appropriate course of action. However it does provide at least a framework for doing so. Something which I believe most religious tenets are lacking in.

[Astralinre]

Alright, thanks for clarifying. :)

[Evilperson]

There is too much hatred going on here.

 

 

 

Hugs!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But honestly, I would like to know, in as short of answers as possible, what people see in Religion.

[Death_By_Pod]

How do you get the moral scripture from a supernatural being without it coming into the natural domain? If it comes into the natural domain, then it can be observed and formulised but this contradicts that god is supernatural. So either God is natural or Moral absolutism has to have a natural source to be valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem still remains that people have lived tens of thousands of years before modern religion (and our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years). These people still had some form of moral system; it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a free for all. How about people like the Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) who live to this day without contact with the modern world, they seem to be living in a pretty structured tribe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you assume we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to tell anyone the Absolutist Moral code and that it pervades throughout the universe, you get back to square one; it is a supernatural idea. You may as well say ghosts are moral spirit directors, ufoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are monitoring our moral behaviour to help the ghosts direct us and vampires assassinate people who know too much about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe systemÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a supernatural idea governing the natural (our brain), it is clear that the brain responds in a naturalistic manner (otherwise things like, brain scans would be useless) so a supernatural set of morals wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t fit the data we see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look within your community of Moral absolutism you see that their morals evolve over time. Back in the dayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s slavery was perfectly moral yet you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see anyone preaching it today. The historical character of religious belief remains the fundamental problem with religious moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moral absolutism contradicts free will, if the world was deterministic then there would be no moral system (since all ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmoral choicesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ have been made by deterministic forces). However if there is free will, Moral absolutism is subjective (because free will includes the freedom to choose what is moral).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s so wrong in saying that Morals were originally invented as a survival tool? If you start randomly killing people, then you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to increase you prospect of having children (and passing your genetic information along). So it would be safe to say that killing people is wrong because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you have children, in fact I would call something like this common sense. Moral absolutism is just a god of the gaps argument, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand enough about how the brain works so god must have made Morals.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

But honestly, I would like to know, in as short of answers as possible, what people see in Religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just read the last 17.5 pages for a start. :?

[dwarfie76]

WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s so wrong in saying that Morals were originally invented as a survival tool? If you start randomly killing people, then you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to increase you prospect of having children (and passing your genetic information along). So it would be safe to say that killing people is wrong because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you have children, in fact I would call something like this common sense. Moral absolutism is just a god of the gaps argument, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand enough about how the brain works so god must have made Morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Selfish Gene - another of my favourite philosophical musings.

[HugATree]

I'm seeing the same argument over and over that real morals need to be absolute, though I've never seen one who profess absolute morals actually demonstrate them, or even give an example of them.

[d-von]

laws are not morals. laws are rules which we got to follow to make the world a more livable place for everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just like the forum rules to make it a good forum for everyone :wink:

[DaN]

edit: ya know just scrap that. I cant be bothered arguing with such naive people

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But thats what religion is all about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lets be fair if they wernt naive they wouldent belive in an ancient fairy tail.

[Skaten]

Mm, this is a really interesting topic.

 

 

 

I don't believe in God, because of 2 reasons.

 

 

 

1. Is there proof, no there isn't any proof.

 

 

 

2. If u pray for something, uhh, mabey for.. poor people, that they can have a house, normal food, and a bed, and it still is the same. U still believe in God than?

 

 

 

I can't understand that, if He doesn't "help" anyone, why is there a God than?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But after all what is said, if u believe in God, don't change it because of what i sad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*GoD*

[dwarfie76]

 

 

 

1. Is there proof, no there isn't any proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there proof of gravity?

[Skaten]

yup there is.

[Fiery_Gyr]

 

 

 

 

1. Is there proof, no there isn't any proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there proof of gravity?

 

 

 

Nope, but we assume it exists because EVERYBODY notices it. Can't say the same thing about god...

 

 

 

With gravity, it went this way:

 

 

 

Theories --> hey, let's call this phenomenon "gravity"

 

 

 

(first there was "proof" and everybody could "see" it)

 

 

 

With religion this way:

 

 

 

God --> hey, let's create some nice theories to convince people.

 

 

 

(no proof and not everyone believes it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't compare religion to science :wink:

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

1. Is there proof, no there isn't any proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there proof of gravity?

 

 

 

:shock:

 

 

 

Nuhuh, Gravity is only a theory; I propose intelligent falling, gravity is so complex that it needs to be created by a 'pusher'. I believe the person pushing us to the 'centre of gravity' is God. Teach the controversyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ