Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Whether or not they progress society for me anyway. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Whether or not they progress society for me anyway. Why do they need to justify their morals to you? Why is your opinion so important? If morality is subjective, how can you be so arrogant as to proclaim yourself the judge of which morals are justified? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Christ, I wish you whiners would be quiet. I NEVER get confused, but XplosivBam has officially confused the hell out of me. I can't even respond to him because in order to do so, I would have to take as many stances on the subject as he is. He's hopping all over the damn place and I don't even know what he's arguing for or against anymore. "Incest is wrong, but the Bible doesn't say that specifically, so we just assume it. Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. No wait, it just says sexual immorality. All you non-believer atheists are just incapable of morals. And you're probably gay, too." Honestly, just shut the hell up. Noone even knows what you're arguing about anymore because when someone brings up another point, you switch your stance on it. It's like a game of Jesus-Tennis and noone cares to watch it. Just admit it already. You're a religious bigot and you're basing all your claims off what you read in a stupid, pointless 6,000 year old book that someone wrote in a mud-hut. I'd tell you to just use your common sense, but unfortunately, believing in religion sacrifices your common sense on the alter of idiocy. And yes, I did just say all you religious creepies have no common sense. And no, it isn't over-generalization. You'd have to be lacking it to believe some dude in the sky in another dimension is going to reward you with eternal life for being a [puncture] while all the actual good people who just live their life go to hell. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I am not, why would they need to justify their morals? Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I am not, why would they need to justify their morals? Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions. So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGBR Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 In Europe at one time the most powerful family was the Hapsburgs, they married every royal family they could find and when there werent any other people to marry they began marrying within the family, the genetic defects caused the end of the family The world would be a whole lot better if little green men in UFO's came down to earth to abduct rednecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion. If it is ridiculous how come atheists can't defend moral absolutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I am not, why would they need to justify their morals? Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions. So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful? As to whether is should be banned then yes. If it's harmful to another member of society it's banned. If it's offensive to another member of society (EG Homosexuals are offensive to some people) thats not justfication to ban the action. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion. If it is ridiculous how come atheists can't defend moral absolutes? What do you mean by 'atheists can't defend moral absolutes'? Do you mean, atheists or anybody believing in a different God than you has lesser morals? Also, provide an example of an absolute moral. In Europe at one time the most powerful family was the Hapsburgs, they married every royal family they could find and when there werent any other people to marry they began marrying within the family, the genetic defects caused the end of the family Some members of the Habsburg family are still alive, but are forbidden by the Austrian constitution to take part in politics (because they could gain popular support and possibly reinstate a monarchy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Absolute moral - murder is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Absolute moral - murder is wrong. Why can't an atheist defend that, since it's universally (in every culture) regardless of the culture's religion, accepted as an absolute moral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I am not, why would they need to justify their morals? Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions. So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful? As to whether is should be banned then yes. If it's harmful to another member of society it's banned. If it's offensive to another member of society (EG Homosexuals are offensive to some people) thats not justfication to ban the action. You believe morality is subjective, correct? Whether or not something causes harm to another is the basis for your personal system or morality, correct? You believe that the government should make laws based upon whether or not something is harmful, correct? So you believe that your personal system of morality ought to determine what everyone else is and isn't allowed to do, correct? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, my justfication to do so though is that this allows religions to practise what they wish, the state has less interferance and allows us to be more free, it will lessen discrimination, hopefully improve society as a whole. In my opinion the degree of my justification is a lot higher than XplsvBam's. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, my justfication to do so though is that this allows religions to practise what they wish, the state has less interferance and allows us to be more free, it will lessen discrimination, hopefully improve society as a whole. In my opinion the degree of my justification is a lot higher than XplsvBam's. So you believe in forcing your views on other people, correct? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, just like Locke and XplsvBam are. Except the degree of my justification is superior to theirs in my opinion. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 it is impossible to say homosexuality is moral because the atheistic worldview (there is no God) cannot defend moral absolutes and thus its moral system is inconsistent and self contradictory. That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion. If it is ridiculous how come atheists can't defend moral absolutes? Because, uh-duhhhh, they're not moral absolutes to us. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS FACT. Remember the last thread you tried to prove atheists have no morals on? Remember what happened? You stopped posting because you lost. Care to try again? Go hump your Bible. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Yes, just like Locke and XplsvBam are. Except the degree of my justification is superior to theirs in my opinion. Exactly - in your opinion. In your opinion, your justification is better than theirs. In their opinion, their justification is better than yours. If everything is subjective, who wins? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Im debating why i don't agree with their justification not whether or not I am forcing my beleifs onto people which to an extent I am but for reasons that don't involve discrimination against members of society, and that want to help progress our society. Religion can even be said as a counter to progress. With religion God is always the supreme being, humans give up trying because they are always accepted for their sins and what have you. Whereas here we are the supreme animal and we should strive for greatness and improvment of humanity. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 If everything is subjective, who wins? The one who causes less evil. A moral absolute, like mentioned above, is for example "murder is wrong". You can't debate that even on a theoretical level, because nobody wants to be murdered, not even a murderer. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't hurt anybody, nor do they even try to hurt anybody, yet people are ready to tell them how they're "morally wrong" for being born in such a way. Being a homophobe can't be an absolute moral because it causes no direct harm to anybody in the society, related or unrelated to the person. A murderer, on the other hand, is a threat to every random person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 And again BlueLancer makes a good argument. ...And again, it will be completely ignored because religious people see homosexuals as the biggest threat to the world, like, ever. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralinre Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 If everything is subjective, who wins? The one who causes less evil. No such thing. If all morals are subjective, as Satenza assumes, and as I am assuming for the sake of talking with him, then there is no absolute evil. So whose definition of evil do we use? Im debating why i don't agree with their justification not whether or not I am forcing my beleifs onto people which to an extent I am but for reasons that don't involve discrimination against members of society, and that want to help progress our society. Religion can even be said as a counter to progress. With religion God is always the supreme being, humans give up trying because they are always accepted for their sins and what have you. Whereas here we are the supreme animal and we should strive for greatness and improvment of humanity. Why are non-discrimination and progress good things? Because you believe so? If morals are subjective, why should we take your view of good over XplsvBam's religion's view of good? You say non-discrimination and progress are good. He says obeying God's word is good. If morals are subjective, what makes your view better than his? "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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest XplsvBam Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 If everything is subjective, who wins? The one who causes less evil. A moral absolute, like mentioned above, is for example "murder is wrong". You can't debate that even on a theoretical level, because nobody wants to be murdered, not even a murderer. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't hurt anybody, nor do they even try to hurt anybody, yet people are ready to tell them how they're "morally wrong" for being born in such a way. The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases. Last time I check AIDS does hurt people.. If homosexuals were born gay wouldn't genetic traits be passed on hereditarily. All that we are is a result of our ancestors. Sex is primarily a biological function designed for procreation. Homosexuality would have to be passed on by recessive genes, like forms of blindness, dwarfism and [developmentally delayed]ation. If gay genes exist, a pattern for that recessive trait could be established as it would require both parents to be carriers. If one claims to be "born gay," one is claiming to be a biological mistake, a freak of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 My view is in tune with reality, his is 2000 years old. I beleive mine to have better relevance as a practical method rather than an ideological one. If we are talking ideolgies i would probably be communist. However human nature makes that impossible in my opinions and my views based on Mill's harm principle is a good balance between individual and state. Again my views are subjective and therefore not absolute truth just my personal thoughts. Edit: AIDS isn't a gay disease. You're being ignorant to social pressures. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Astra, it probably has something to do with the fact that his morals come from a 6,000 year old book that may very well be fiction, and ours come from our own personal common sense. So yea, I'd say ours are pretty much better...Unless you're planning on getting your morals from Harry Potter or something anytime soon. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now