It's Idiots Like This That Insult My And The Bible's Integrity

Exactly, which is why everyone is inherently evil and cant do no good at all.

Or in a more all else statement: Why the world is spinning into a state of chaos and destruction.

A state of no absolutes, is a state of no one being accountable for their actions, is a state of everyone just doing whatever they want without having any motivation for others.
 
lol man, you guys are too pessimistic. :lol

I love life..nothing's wrong with it. Haven't met an evil person in quite some time, haha.
 
Starrynite said:
Unfortunately we live in a world with absolutes so people cant simply do what they want (well it also invades other peoples feelings of safety and security). There is a clear line between doing what is right and doing what is wrong. So in all issues a right and a wrong must be declared.
Click to expand...

Please, demonstrate this clear line, where it is, and where it gets its validity.

stealth toilet said:
And Dart rightly pointed out the Nazi regime. When put on trial in Nuremburg they tried to hide behind the idea that in their unique cultural societal environment they believed what they were doing to be right, and therefore an outsider was incapable of judging their actions. The World Court which put them on trial dismissed this as nonsense, and they were all convicted for crimes against humanity. Meaning, at some point, at some level, there is some form of morality that we can all agree upon. We have to, all order and civilization depends on it. We can argue or bicker over the application of an absolute in a unique situation, but we disagree over how to proceed morally, not over the validity of the moral itself.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that society needs the illusion of moral absolutes to avoid total anarchy. Civilization would be impossible without some form of morality that is generally used to create laws, but the morality is never absolute. The action is not inherently evil or good. It is only perceived as such. While I see the necessity of law and a general agreement on right and wrong within a society, I do not see why that agreement is, in the end, absolute.

And I thought for once I wasn't gonna be in one of these debates... :lol
 
Ten arguments that cannot be won. It's funny, but maybe we should have a rule against these topics: :lol

Evolution vs. Creationism
Nature vs. Nurture
Gun control
Euthanasia
The death penalty
Abortion vs. Pro-Life
Free Will or Destiny
Morals - Relative or universal?
The chicken or the egg?
Does God exist?

With any of these arguments, we could go to a million posts and revolve around the same circle. ::)
 
Dart said:
Morals - Relative or universal?
Click to expand...

If a moral cannot be demonstrated to be absolute, then why should we assume it is? As you say, the debate cannot be won, but if this claim that morals are universal cannot be backed, then why should it be considered?
 
Dart said:
With any of these arguments, we could go to a million posts and revolve around the same circle. ::)
Click to expand...

Pfft, nonsense. I could answer every single one of those questions right now. Whether or not anybody listens to me (a.k.a. TRUTH and REASON), well, that's their problem not mine.

Maybe the rule should be that only I get to make those kinds of topics, and only I get to post in them.

Yeah... I think that'll work...

:lol
 
homicidal cherry53 said:
Please, demonstrate this clear line, where it is, and where it gets its validity.
Click to expand...

Simple, the clear line would be that if it harms someone and they clearly dont like it, youve infringed upon their wishes and thus done something absolutly wrong/evil even.
 
Starrynite said:
Simple, the clear line would be that if it harms someone and they clearly dont like it, youve infringed upon their wishes and thus done something absolutly wrong/evil even.
Click to expand...
And what makes "infringing upon their wishes" wrong exactly?
 
Its wrong to the person because it is something they dont like and causes harm. A violation of one of the foundations of nature in that anything that causes harm causes detriment and thus a defense mechanism has been set up to counter it. If it doesnt cause harm then the defense mechanism doesnt take action.

Why else would animals and plants and fungi and bacteria and viruses and archaeans have defense mechanisms?
 
Starrynite said:
Its wrong to the person because it is something they dont like and causes harm. A violation of one of the foundations of nature in that anything that causes harm causes detriment and thus a defense mechanism has been set up to counter it. If it doesnt cause harm then the defense mechanism doesnt take action.

Why else would animals and plants and fungi and bacteria and viruses and archaeans have defense mechanisms?
Click to expand...

But for causing harm to be inherently negative, you have to establish that those defense mechanisms and the goal they are working towards (survival) are morally right. That is merely what works on an evolutionary level, not something with some intrinsic moral value.
 
Who carea about moral value when all we serve to do in life is to survive? I dont see plants and animals concerned with doing anymore than protecting themselves and serving to help their community of followers of same organisms survive.
 
Starrynite said:
Who carea about moral value when all we serve to do in life is to survive? I dont see plants and animals concerned with doing anymore than protecting themselves and serving to help their community of followers of same organisms survive.
Click to expand...
This debate is about moral values, not survival. You described a clear moral line several posts back, and survival clearly isn't it, as you yourself just said the two were not one in the same. If not survival, what do you base this clear moral line upon?
 
I didnt say it wasnt about survival. I was just indicating that there is no need to care about morality. But for the sake of advocating my point, the clear line is that any one whos actions inhibit survival and caring for the community's survival is in violation of the moral line. Morality must rely on Survival.
 
Starrynite said:
I didnt say it wasnt about survival. I was just indicating that there is no need to care about morality. But for the sake of advocating my point, the clear line is that any one whos actions inhibit survival and caring for the community's survival is in violation of the moral line. Morality must rely on Survival.
Click to expand...
You're saying what moral code we should adapt in order to be more fit to survive. I see no objectivity in your moral code, only a line that you and only you have drawn that is without intrinsic value. Why is it your morality which is based on survival, and is not absolute, that should be followed?
 
Homicidal Cherry53 said:
If a moral cannot be demonstrated to be absolute, then why should we assume it is? As you say, the debate cannot be won, but if this claim that morals are universal cannot be backed, then why should it be considered?
Click to expand...

I base my morality on what is written in the Bible. I use it to base my actions on because I know that although I change, and the society I live in can change, I know that the Bible will not.

Not much when it comes to debate (also because it's not up for debate).

stealth toilet said:
Pfft, nonsense. I could answer every single one of those questions right now. Whether or not anybody listens to me (a.k.a. TRUTH and REASON), well, that's their problem not mine.

Maybe the rule should be that only I get to make those kinds of topics, and only I get to post in them.

Yeah... I think that'll work...

:lol
Click to expand...

Dang. If you weren't Canadian, I'd say we could pass off as cousins or something. :lol
 
Dart said:
Dang. If you weren't Canadian, I'd say we could pass off as cousins or something. :lol
Click to expand...

You know what they about great minds thinking alike... that they're also dashingly hansom, and they get increasingly more so the closer to the North Pole they live. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top