Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

2007-04-04 13:08:23
d4rkst4r
biggie smalls
+72|6901|Ontario, Canada

NemeSiS-Factor wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

For some time now, I have noticed that Atheists in this forum (both conservative and liberal, BF2 and 2142 lovers, British, American, Peruvian, and Australian) have made a habit of suggesting that a certain action or policy is "right" or "wrong," or "good" or "bad."

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
If you believe in a religion, then you can believe in nothing more than 100% spoon-fed bull shit.  Whether its from the Bible, Koran, or Torah, none of it's real.  That's not my OPINION either, there is no facts AT ALL to confirm anything in any religion.  And there is a 'good' and 'bad' in morals.  Thats the friggin point in morals.  If the popular belief is that something is wrong, then it is.  That's it.

Also, if you believe in a god, then you don't even HAVE a more powerful seed, because your stupid.

Now let me ask YOU a question.  Why does some guy high on opium in some cave a two thousand years ago get to decide whats right and wrong for all Christians?  Yeah, I'm talking about the guy who made up the bible.  The guy posing as god.
People like this ^^^^ are the ones who need help. Here's the way I see it, Im a Christian, and your an atheist. You have your opinion on life, I have mine, both hold high values to ourselves. I don't see the need to trash each other. BTW, I don't see why anyone should listen to this guy, since he can't even spell Qur'an correctly.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
2007-04-04 13:08:41
Fen321
Member
+54|6945|Singularity
wait wait wait...if you don't believe in moral relativism...and can claim that homosexuality is wrong while -- seeing that another individual i.e. myself  does NOT VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY AS WRONG doesn't that by definition equate to, in your perception of a definitive moral, now just become relative to you and I?

Or look at it this way -- if morals were none relative how come Human beings, from a Christian view point here, whom are created in the imagine of a deity, that holds the correct form of being, not give vis a vi your creation give you these hard wired morals -- but later required for it to be written on some Rocks? Should they not be so well known that an omnipotent being would leave no shadow of a doubt as to what is right and wrong then?
2007-04-04 13:09:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7099|USA

doublestuforeo wrote:

For some time now, I have noticed that Atheists in this forum (both conservative and liberal, BF2 and 2142 lovers, British, American, Peruvian, and Australian) have made a habit of suggesting that a certain action or policy is "right" or "wrong," or "good" or "bad."

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
Even an atheist can believe in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. He can expect that no one should trespass on his rights to these. He can also recognize that he shouldn't infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same.

Basically, live and let live......... Where exactly is the moral dilemma for an atheist? Do you really have to have religion in order to know when you are intering in someones' life in a negative way? DO you really have to have religion to know when YOU are being interfered with??
2007-04-04 13:10:50
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6978|The lunar module

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:

I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.
Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.
Wrong.

doublestuforeo's description of moral relativism is correct.

Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-04-04 13:20:59)

2007-04-04 13:13:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

lowing wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

For some time now, I have noticed that Atheists in this forum (both conservative and liberal, BF2 and 2142 lovers, British, American, Peruvian, and Australian) have made a habit of suggesting that a certain action or policy is "right" or "wrong," or "good" or "bad."

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
Even an atheist can believe in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. He can expect that no one should trespass on his rights to these. He can also recognize that he shouldn't infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same.

Basically, live and let live......... Where exactly is the moral dilemma for an atheist? Do you really have to have religion in order to know when you are intering in someones' life in a negative way? DO you really have to have religion to know when YOU are being interfered with??
Exactly. It's all just about getting along in a way that works. You know what pisses you off, so you know not to do it to other people.

Or, since this thread is all about religion - Do unto others....   blah blah blah....
2007-04-04 13:16:33
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1
Your post has everything to do with religion. You may not see that, but if you don't you are seriously deluded.

Perhaps that's what you meant in your OP, it is not what it stated. It was also written in such a way as to lead replies. Logical, honest and succinct it is not.

Lets go through and answer the individual points:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."
What about moral pluralism? What about the multitude of other perspectives that this can be viewed from? It is also perfectly possible to take a morally absolutist viewpoint.

As an Atheist (which is totally irrellevant to the point), personally my views depend upon the situation and are based upon my own instincts and the values that have been instilled in me through my social environment. This does not preclude me from taking a morally absolutist stance on some issues.

What is the logic behind that statement? Why can't you understand how someone who doesn't believe in God can come to the same viewpoint on ethical issues?

You make a lot lot of grandiose references to philosophical ideals, without seeming to understand what they mean. If you do understand what they mean, you are not expressing yourself properly.

doublestuforeo wrote:

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.
I believe that human instinct developed through genetic evolution and plays an important role in our own perceptions of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It is interesting that you brought up rape, which is often used as an example by biologists to demonstrate points very similar to this (Prof. Robert Winston's book Human Instinct goes into some detail on this). It is far more likely that a woman will become pregnant after being raped than after consentual sex, this is a throwback to when rape was an important evolutionary device which would result in the strongest being the most successfull at passing on their genes. When humans became a more social species living in communities such behaviour was shunned, as those who survived best in a community were those who worked together and respected those alongside them. This point in time is considered by many to be an crucial period for the formation of morals on both the genetic and social level.

I've explained that very badly, but hopefully you'll get the gist.

doublestuforeo wrote:

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."
This is where your post becomes really quite offensive and indicative of your apparent delusions on this topic. Morals are there because humans are social creatures and require a 'social code' of sorts to coexist harmoniously. Until humans became social creatures morals didn't matter.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
Of course. On the same grounds as everyone else. Everyone has the right to make moral judgements. What is right or wrong is determined by what society finds to be acceptable or not.
I probably understand more about philosophy than you might give me credit.

I am not going to argue about how offensive you found my original post.

To calm all the Atheists down, I will explain something.  I left God out of this debate, because you can not argue religious beliefs.
2007-04-04 13:19:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7099|USA

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1
Your post has everything to do with religion. You may not see that, but if you don't you are seriously deluded.

Perhaps that's what you meant in your OP, it is not what it stated. It was also written in such a way as to lead replies. Logical, honest and succinct it is not.

Lets go through and answer the individual points:

doublestuforeo wrote:

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."
What about moral pluralism? What about the multitude of other perspectives that this can be viewed from? It is also perfectly possible to take a morally absolutist viewpoint.

As an Atheist (which is totally irrellevant to the point), personally my views depend upon the situation and are based upon my own instincts and the values that have been instilled in me through my social environment. This does not preclude me from taking a morally absolutist stance on some issues.

What is the logic behind that statement? Why can't you understand how someone who doesn't believe in God can come to the same viewpoint on ethical issues?

You make a lot lot of grandiose references to philosophical ideals, without seeming to understand what they mean. If you do understand what they mean, you are not expressing yourself properly.

doublestuforeo wrote:

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.
I believe that human instinct developed through genetic evolution and plays an important role in our own perceptions of what is 'right' and 'wrong'. It is interesting that you brought up rape, which is often used as an example by biologists to demonstrate points very similar to this (Prof. Robert Winston's book Human Instinct goes into some detail on this). It is far more likely that a woman will become pregnant after being raped than after consentual sex, this is a throwback to when rape was an important evolutionary device which would result in the strongest being the most successfull at passing on their genes. When humans became a more social species living in communities such behaviour was shunned, as those who survived best in a community were those who worked together and respected those alongside them. This point in time is considered by many to be an crucial period for the formation of morals on both the genetic and social level.

I've explained that very badly, but hopefully you'll get the gist.

doublestuforeo wrote:

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."
This is where your post becomes really quite offensive and indicative of your apparent delusions on this topic. Morals are there because humans are social creatures and require a 'social code' of sorts to coexist harmoniously. Until humans became social creatures morals didn't matter.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
Of course. On the same grounds as everyone else. Everyone has the right to make moral judgements. What is right or wrong is determined by what society finds to be acceptable or not.
I probably understand more about philosophy than you might give me credit.

I am not going to argue about how offensive you found my original post.

To calm all the Atheists down, I will explain something.  I left God out of this debate, because you can not argue religious beliefs.
In all fairness, you can not single out "Atheists" only without having religion, or the belief in GOD being a part of the discussion. ..................................Can you???
2007-04-04 13:19:57
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The world is not binary. There are rarely any absolutes on this planet. The seeds of religion, a tool devised by humanity to civilise us and take us out of primeval drudgery and to exert power/influence on others, were planted thousands of years ago. In those dark times humans needed to work together to move forward in adverse circumstances. Kind of like ants, bees, chimpanzees, etc., a system developed that allowed them to co-exist relatively peacefully with their own kind.

Look at chimpanzees. They don't worship a god. They work communally, won't kill (thou shalt not kill) or hurt each other (love thy neighbour), have social hieraarchies within tribes (respect your elders). When threatened by another tribe of chimpanzees the tribe will fight and even eat their foes (war). All very human characteristics. These are the values and codes of morality that later were described by humans through the fables of the various religions that developed on this green and blue rock. They are intrinsic parts of communal mammalian behaviour. They are not the product of some ridiculous epiphany some camel herder had on top of a mountain.

Civilisation manages morality. Morality lives and breathes. There are a few givens, as demonstrated by the chimps but the culture in which you are brought up in large part dictates what is moral and immoral, building on an historic development of morality that started when our brains evolved the ability to have such a thing.   If one adhered to the bible you would treat homsexuals like second class citizens - preposterous. I don't think that book is relevant at all. It gave western civilisation a start in terms of doing the dirty work of civilising us but you could well be worshipping the Egyption Sun God Ra and preaching his merits if history had taken a different course.

My moral code is this - it's a no-brainer for social animals (for example humans):

1) Don't kill unless your life depends on it.
2) Don't steal unless your life depends on it.
3) Treat others as you would hope to be treated yourself.
4) We are all equal.

I'd say most chimps adhere to said code.


PS Debate is a cross-fire. Not answering questions that spill out of the OP is pretty lame if you ask me.
That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?
Not implanted, evolved. But that is only a part of it.
We also have a more complex social structure and system of communication which makes it easier to find common moral ground, particularly with those in the same social environment. Which is why many customs from other cultures may seem barbaric or immoral to some people - much like women being stoned. We also have law enforcement systems in place which help, fear of retribution for ones actions makes it a lot easier to stick to a moral code - which is where we come to religion. Religion is just like a law enforcement system, enforcing a moral code with the threat of retribution if you do not adhere to it.

In any case, all the things you pointed out also happen in human society, even amongst - gasp - some Christians!
Depending on your definition of Christians.  I would say that such things never happen amongst true Christians.

But once again, this isnt about religion.
2007-04-04 13:20:51
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

apollo_fi wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:


Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.
Wrong.

oreo's description of moral relativism is very much in the ballpark.
In the ballpark, but kind of wrong.
Cam's description is far more accurate.

In fact your link states:
Moral relativism rejects the idea of an objective morality, but its proponents do not all agree as to the nature of morality.
The whole stance that a morally relativistic view is the only one that can be taken by an Atheist is very silly.
2007-04-04 13:22:31
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

doublestuforeo wrote:

... To calm all the Atheists down, I will explain something.  I left God out of this debate, because you can not argue religious beliefs.
LOL...

And how did you actually keep the God concept out of the debate?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-04 14:56:01)

2007-04-04 13:24:14
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?


I dont remember all the questions I have been asked.  I have only ignored questions that had nothing to do with the thread (basically all of them.  Including yours).  However, since you really seem to want answers, I will answer yours.

I believe homosexuality is immoral (you will take that as me saying I treat the like "second class citizens."  This is not even remotely the case at all.  I believe homosexuals should have the right to get married, and have every right that anyone else does.).

I don't believe there is any circumstance in which it is okay to stone a woman to death.

If I can answer any other pointless questions... please let me know.
I asked about the stoning because in either Leviticus or Dueteronomy it states that that's exactly what should be done to a woman who has been raped but didn't scream, rather oddly.

Bertster covered the rest I think. Cheers B.
You assume I take the bible literally.  How did this become about me and my beliefs?
2007-04-04 13:26:18
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

lowing wrote:

In all fairness, you can not single out "Atheists" only without having religion, or the belief in GOD being a part of the discussion. ..................................Can you???
No you can't.

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Not implanted, evolved. But that is only a part of it.
We also have a more complex social structure and system of communication which makes it easier to find common moral ground, particularly with those in the same social environment. Which is why many customs from other cultures may seem barbaric or immoral to some people - much like women being stoned. We also have law enforcement systems in place which help, fear of retribution for ones actions makes it a lot easier to stick to a moral code - which is where we come to religion. Religion is just like a law enforcement system, enforcing a moral code with the threat of retribution if you do not adhere to it.

In any case, all the things you pointed out also happen in human society, even amongst - gasp - some Christians!
Depending on your definition of Christians.  I would say that such things never happen amongst true Christians.

But once again, this isnt about religion.
Strange then that the only point in my post you should respond to, without attempting to answer any of them, is the one about religion.

doublestuforeo wrote:

To calm all the Atheists down, I will explain something.  I left God out of this debate, because you can not argue religious beliefs.
No you haven't.

The very distinction between Atheists and Theists makes the thread about religion. Making a thread about religion brings God into it.
2007-04-04 13:28:28
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7110|USA

doublestuforeo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

That is a pretty good answer.  However, many mammals, even chimps, will fight over women and such and kill one another.  They are even known to... rape (gasp), and will even kill undesired young from other males.

So, you are suggesting that "morals" are genetically implanted in us?


I dont remember all the questions I have been asked.  I have only ignored questions that had nothing to do with the thread (basically all of them.  Including yours).  However, since you really seem to want answers, I will answer yours.

I believe homosexuality is immoral (you will take that as me saying I treat the like "second class citizens."  This is not even remotely the case at all.  I believe homosexuals should have the right to get married, and have every right that anyone else does.).

I don't believe there is any circumstance in which it is okay to stone a woman to death.

If I can answer any other pointless questions... please let me know.
I asked about the stoning because in either Leviticus or Dueteronomy it states that that's exactly what should be done to a woman who has been raped but didn't scream, rather oddly.

Bertster covered the rest I think. Cheers B.
You assume I take the bible literally.  How did this become about me and my beliefs?
Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.
2007-04-04 13:29:30
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.
It's what it says. Whether it's what he means or not is debatable, but it clearly says that.
2007-04-04 13:30:19
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

topal63 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:


I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.
Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
No... and it is incorrect.

Morals for the record (factually) are relative... from time to time and place to place - society to society - religion to religion - person to person even. Subjective determinations of right and wrong are all over the place. MORAL RELATIVISM is a FACT. You believing in an absurdity does not change the reality of it.

You can't cheat on your wife if she says to you it's not cheating (no violation of trust; it is consented to).
You are not cheating on your wife (one) if you're allowed to have many (wives).

The desire to remain in a relationship is an ethical question of consequences for actions taken. Who is emotionally harmed if cheating is deemed a violation of personal trust? God or spouse? It is obvious - the spouse... not God.
Are you thinking that anyone on this earth would argue that everyone believes in the same morals?

That is one interpretation, a literal interpretation that is so elementary that I didn't even take the time to consider it.  My bad.  What I am arguing about is if there is one truth or not.

If there is a God, and there is a true right and wrong, there is no moral relativism.
2007-04-04 13:30:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

doublestuforeo wrote:

You assume I take the bible literally.  How did this become about me and my beliefs?
Because you became the handy test specimen for the non-atheist representative required of your OP. To talk of atheist moral codes one must almsot automatically talk of the moral codes of religious people for comparison purposes.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-04 13:31:27)

2007-04-04 13:32:01
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:


I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.
Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.
Apparently, our universities use different semantics, but the concept is what matters.
2007-04-04 13:32:15
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6900|Cambridge, UK

doublestuforeo wrote:

KylieTastic wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

...... but once again, I do not believe in moral relativism.  This thread is about moral relativism.
I guess thats the problem, I have no real idea what you mean by "moral relativism" and I think probably quite a few of the other readers and respondants dont either.
Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
Ok I think I understand what you mean now (but as always in D&ST there will be arguments over semantics)

I can understand why you say you don't believe in "moral relativism" for the big things like adultery in your example. If I did believe in a God, and for instance that they had given the Christian 10 commandments, then I would absolutely follow them. I don't understand why people who do say they believe consistently ignore 'the rules'

So I would have thought it was more a case of "Where do religious people they they get the right [to second judge God]?"

An Atheist has to make judgements on the big stuff (murder, rape, adultery, etc.) the same as the small stuff.

Do you not believe in "moral relativism" for the small stuff not set down by God? Such as "People shouldn't use cheats when playing BF2"?
2007-04-04 13:33:39
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

Bertster7 wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Regardless of what you state now, your thread title is kind of asking for a fight. Its as if yourdismissing Atheists rights. as if they were "below" you. Not saying it means that, but thats what I thought when I first saw it.
It's what it says. Whether it's what he means or not is debatable, but it clearly says that.
Not only that... but philosophically scientifically factually MORAL RELATIVISM is a FACT - not worth debating... since it is a FACT. If one wants to behave according to a mode of social conduct, one assumes to be thoughtful, or of higher value, ethics are the next step and thus the credo:

Actions taken have consequences.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-04 13:41:17)

2007-04-04 13:38:22
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6978|The lunar module

Bertster7 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.
Wrong.

oreo's description of moral relativism is very much in the ballpark.
In the ballpark, but kind of wrong.
Cam's description is far more accurate..
OK, I take it back. Oreo's description is quite correct.

doublestuforeo wrote:

'Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."
That is the essence of moral relativism. The same definition applies, of course, to e.g. moral pluralism. To distinguish between the two, you have to refine the definition.

Bertster7 wrote:

The whole stance that a morally relativistic view is the only one that can be taken by an Atheist is very silly.
Why?
2007-04-04 13:38:26
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

TigerXtrm wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

MY POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  Read what I wrote, don't assume what I meant.  You dont know me.

As a religious person, I believe in an all powerful being who has expressed truthes that are eternal and unchangeable.  I believe that there are true morals, and that, no matter what my opinion is, these morals are still correct.  I believe that God, knowing all, has expressed what is truly "right" and "wrong."  I do not believe in moral relativism.  However, as I already stated, this has nothing to do with me.

You are all way to defensive to remain logical.  I may have worded my post in a way to seem hostile, but if you reread it, you will find it is logical, honest, and sucsinct.

Thank you Stingray24 for being able to read. +1
So according to you, it's morally correct to kill a homosexual by throwing rocks at him in the town square and letting him go on with his life is morally totally not done?

Anyway, your post was ALL about religion. You asked Athiests specificaly, making it a post with a religious intent. Should you have left it out, then it would be a normal topic. Instead you pretty much asked us: 'Only my god can be right, how on earth can all these non believer claim their morals are right?!!!'

Anyhoo, I shall try to answer your topic leaving religion out of it. As a normal person, taking any kind of religion out of the story, I take my morals from what I think is right and what I think is wrong. I base my morals on my own experiences and my own opinion and not on anyone else. For example, just because women are of somewhat equal standard to men in the western culture, it doesn't have to be the same in the middle east. Thats not for us to decide, it's a culture thing, deal with it.

And to go back to your original question: 'We' get the right the say right from wrong because we are alive human beings. You worshipping some dipshit in space doesn't make you special... except for the fact that it makes you a total idiot.

Tiger
I am so fucking tired of people knowing my intentions.  I didn't bring God into this because I didn't want this to turn into a religious debate.

My initial post was strong worded and it was meant to get people riled up and responding.  However, if I had known that you all were so damned sensitive, I would have made it more politically correct for you.  I will remember to tap-dance around you all in the future.

Besides that, thank you for the post.  I think that is a legitimate answer.  +1 to you, you uber-sensitive dumbass, when I get the ability to karma.
2007-04-04 13:38:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:


Sorry.  That was my bad.  Moral relativism is simply the idea that there is no one true "right" and "wrong."

If I have sex with a woman other than my wife - the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such an action is dictated by the person judging.  Some might say that is okay, and some might say it isn't.

The opposite would be someone who believes that there is a true "right" and "wrong."  E.g. Cheating on your wife is wrong, even if everyone else in the world believes it is okay.

Does that make sense?
It does make sense. It's not what moral relativism is though.

That would be objective morality. Which is very different.
Apparently, our universities use different semantics, but the concept is what matters.
The real objection I had to your use of the term was in your insistance that moral relativism is the only viewpoint Atheists could embrace. I'm waiting for a reason why that should be the case.
Why not moral pluralism? Why not a different stance from a morally absolutist perspective? What possible reason is there that Atheists could not hold these views?
2007-04-04 13:41:09
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

Fen321 wrote:

wait wait wait...if you don't believe in moral relativism...and can claim that homosexuality is wrong while -- seeing that another individual i.e. myself  does NOT VIEW HOMOSEXUALITY AS WRONG doesn't that by definition equate to, in your perception of a definitive moral, now just become relative to you and I?

Or look at it this way -- if morals were none relative how come Human beings, from a Christian view point here, whom are created in the imagine of a deity, that holds the correct form of being, not give vis a vi your creation give you these hard wired morals -- but later required for it to be written on some Rocks? Should they not be so well known that an omnipotent being would leave no shadow of a doubt as to what is right and wrong then?
I apologize to all of you who think I am arguing that everyone believes in the exact same morals.

I had no idea that anyone could think that anyone was that stupid.
2007-04-04 13:42:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

doublestuforeo wrote:

I am so fucking tired of people knowing my intentions.  I didn't bring God into this because I didn't want this to turn into a religious debate.
You DID bring God into this.

You may not have wanted it to turn into a religious debate and I suggest you word your OPs more delicately in future if you wish to avoid this sort of......    I would say ambiguity - but there isn't any ambiguity about it, you did just write a thread about religion and ethics and you wonder why people are commenting on religion....
2007-04-04 13:45:04
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

lowing wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

For some time now, I have noticed that Atheists in this forum (both conservative and liberal, BF2 and 2142 lovers, British, American, Peruvian, and Australian) have made a habit of suggesting that a certain action or policy is "right" or "wrong," or "good" or "bad."

If you are an Atheist, I do not understand how you can logically believe in anything other than "moral relativism."  In a world of "moral relativism," anything morality based is 100% opinion, and means exactly nothing in any sort of logical reality.  In "moral relativism" there is no "true" "good" or "bad."

The only "truth" that is possibly graspable for Atheists is evolution; in which case, it is not only okay, but it is necessary that I kill you and rape your wife/girlfriend to pass on my more "powerful" seed.  I would guess that most of you aren't okay with that.

What I am suggesting, is that I don't understand why you Atheists feel you have the right to state anything more definitive than "I personally wouldn't do that."   I don't believe you have the grounds to suggest something is actually "right" or "wrong."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
Even an atheist can believe in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. He can expect that no one should trespass on his rights to these. He can also recognize that he shouldn't infringe on anyone else's pursuit of the same.

Basically, live and let live......... Where exactly is the moral dilemma for an atheist? Do you really have to have religion in order to know when you are intering in someones' life in a negative way? DO you really have to have religion to know when YOU are being interfered with??
I personally agree with live and let live.

However, if someone else doesn't, who are you to say that they are wrong.  If someone else wants my house, and they are bigger and stronger than me, who are you to say they can't take it?  Isnt that their right?  Survival of the fittest.  Where do we get "rights" from.  Why do you have the "right" to the pursuit of happiness?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard