Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2007-04-04 14:10:44
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

Bertster7 wrote:

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....
Most people are arguing about religion because they dont know how to answer my question.

If you read the rest of my post (which you cut off) you would see that I already proclaimed that I will word things more delicately in the future (even before I got your advice).  I will try to make future debates as colorless and uninteresting as possible.
2007-04-04 14:12:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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....
Most people are arguing about religion because they dont know how to answer my question.

If you read the rest of my post (which you cut off) you would see that I already proclaimed that I will word things more delicately in the future (even before I got your advice).  I will try to make future debates as colorless and uninteresting as possible.
I addressed practically everything but you ceased to respond to my posts a couple of pages back...
2007-04-04 14:12:43
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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....
Most people are arguing about religion because they dont know how to answer my question.

If you read the rest of my post (which you cut off) you would see that I already proclaimed that I will word things more delicately in the future (even before I got your advice).  I will try to make future debates as colorless and uninteresting as possible.
You did a great job with this one.
2007-04-04 14:15:34
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7170|Eastern PA

doublestuforeo wrote:

That all makes sense.  So you believe that right and wrong are simply semantical examples of what society has decided to allow?  Thus, if a society says it is right, it is right? (e.g. native americans beating handicapped children to death in ceremonies).
In a sense, yes. I don't agree with the Native American bit that you posted because (as I've said) I've internalized the cultural norms of late-20th century (particularly Cold-War era, late-20th century) American society. If that were American custom of the last 40 years then I probably wouldn't have any problems with it.

An illustrative example of what you're getting at is the issue of spousal abuse. Largely before the suffrage movement beating one's wife was not seen as an assault or even as a societal ill. Today it is. Ask yourself why that is. What has changed since the suffrage movement of the 1920s or the Women's Lib movement of the 1960s and 70s? Society has changed and dramatically so. For the better I'd say.

I hope you can debate this without any alarmist examples. But I hope you'd examine your own opinions and try to find relevant situations.

Since you're religious I'd say slavery is another relevant example. In the 1800s (in the US at least) slavery was justified on various grounds. One of those was Christian religious grounds. I presume you're against slavery, though had you been born 200 years ago you might have been and might have justified it by quoting the Bible. The Bible has not changed much in the intervening centuries but American society has (again) changed dramatically so. Slavery is now seen as one of the most pernicious of evils.
2007-04-04 14:17:20
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

sergeriver wrote:

Who is this guy behind a noob account?
I used to go by weamo8.  My 2142 character is doublestuforeo, so I thought I would move on.
2007-04-04 14:17:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7030|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


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....
Most people are arguing about religion because they dont know how to answer my question.

If you read the rest of my post (which you cut off) you would see that I already proclaimed that I will word things more delicately in the future (even before I got your advice).  I will try to make future debates as colorless and uninteresting as possible.
I addressed practically everything but you ceased to respond to my posts a couple of pages back...
Exactly. I haven't had any responses made to my points. Just replies to my posts, saying this isn't about religion.

What about the point I made about morals being an evolutionary trait developed by social animals both on a genetic and social level?

We are talking about what morals are, how they originated and why they don't come from religion. I've also attempted to contrast religion with law enforcement to get my point across - points which you've seemed to be uninterested in responding to.
2007-04-04 14:19:23
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

lowing wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

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.
Actually I read your post thinking that YOU thought athiests could not have morality, without some sort of religious context to base it on........ I think you were shown this to be wrong. No disrespect intended
Not at all.  I really respect Confusionism and such.  I used to be an Atheist myself.

I think it is about time to end this thread.  I appreciate the constructive imput from the few of you who were willing.
2007-04-04 14:20:54
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

sergeriver wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:


Wrong.

doublestuforeo's description of moral relativism is correct.
Can you read?  Wikipedia is totally reinforcing what I said.

btw... wikipedia is not God.
Don't forget you are talking mostly with atheists.
lol.  I never agree with you serge, but you almost always manage to make me laugh.
2007-04-04 14:21:18
topal63
. . .
+533|7166

Bertster7 wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

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?
An Atheist can absolutly base their morals on Utilitarianism, or Existentialism, or Kant or even Neitzsche for all I care.

I simply want to know what you base your morals on, and why you believe that set of morals gives you the grounds to proclaim something "right" or "wrong."

Do you believe in moral pluralism?
I don't believe in applying any moral code universally. There are some things that I consider to be absolutely wrong and others where it is less clear cut. Each case shoudl be judged on it's own merits.

But my views are not shared by all Atheists.
Doublestuforeo, I most certainly do not believe in ANYTHING per se, this is probably odd to you... as it makes the whole concept of determining the ethical standard complex and difficult (from my perspective it does not seem hard at all).

But the foundation of my personal ethics are (but not limited to this):
Certainty is not warranted in life - by fallible human beings.

Actions taken have consequences (and those affected are people).

Murder, violence against others, etc… this is often the great personal moral-ethic concern all other matters seem trivial, in comparison, or mere social conduct of little consequence to mature socialized individuals. To take a man’s life is - to take everything he has, is, and ever will be.


Also you're demonstrating your ignorance of Evolution as a concept/as a principle/as science (something you brought up in the first post of this thread), Natural origins of reciprocal altruism (do unto others as you would have them do unto you):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-04 14:33:17)

2007-04-04 14:21:22
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6979|The lunar module

Bertster7 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

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?
Why can't an Atheist hold a morally absolutist view? Or a morally pluralistic view? What possible reason is there why they shouldn't?

There isn't one. That's why it's silly.

Just because the typical Christian system of morals is based in absolutism, it does not mean Atheists have to believe something different. Plato did not believe in any Gods (although he kept his mouth shut about that) - yet he was a believer in absolutism.
All true.

My mistake was to equate atheism with rationalism. Of course it is so that not all atheists are rationalists (and vice versa).
2007-04-04 14:28:05
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681
I have to apologize now.  I just can not keep up with you all.  Unfortunately my work is suffering because I have spent so much time on this thread.  I need to get back to work.

I will not close the thread now, however, because I dont think I deserve the last word.

I will be reading all the posts later if anyone out there has some insults they havent gotten out yet, feel free to add them.

The thread didnt go how I wanted it to, but I still found it interesting.

Thank you all, and I will be karmaing as many of you as I can over the next few weeks.

Does anyone know when I will get the ability to send karma on this new account?
2007-04-04 14:34:34
doublestuforeo
Banned
+9|6681

CameronPoe wrote:

doublestuforeo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


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....
Most people are arguing about religion because they dont know how to answer my question.

If you read the rest of my post (which you cut off) you would see that I already proclaimed that I will word things more delicately in the future (even before I got your advice).  I will try to make future debates as colorless and uninteresting as possible.
I addressed practically everything but you ceased to respond to my posts a couple of pages back...
Sorry CameronPoe.  I do think your response was, by far, the best response to my question.  I dont fully agree, and I think there is more to morality than genetics and sociallity (and I am not particularly refering to God), but I thought it was a great response.
2007-04-04 14:38:18
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6793|Twyford, UK
I dunno, what gives you fundamentalists the right to preach at me and belittle my beliefs?

What gives YOU the idea that there's some big cosmic intelligence that made everything with super-magical powers? Where's the assurance that it's benign, or even sane?
Do you actually BELIEVE that crap through a personal decision, or were you just raised to? Can you back up your beliefs with logic and not just a book?
2007-04-04 16:02:38
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|7008
The Ten Commandments FTW!!
2007-04-04 16:14:43
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6791|California

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?
Are you saying that someone who is religious doest not base what they believe in on an opinion considering you can not prove your religion is right or even that All the religions are not one of the same just with different point of views (much like the Gossip Game)? On what grounds do the religious have to state what is right or what is wrong. ANYONE who states if something is right or wrong is asserting their opinion and there is no definite standard to the right and the wrong and the good and the bad.

doublestuforeo wrote:

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.
You passing your "stronger" seed along is not evolution. Evolution is

Wikipedia wrote:

Natural selection, one of the processes that drives evolution, results from the difference in reproductive success between individuals in a population. If these traits increase the evolutionary fitness of the individuals that carry them, then those individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce than other organisms in the population, thus passing more copies of those heritable traits on to the next generation. The corresponding decrease in fitness for deleterious traits results in their becoming rarer. In time, this can result in adaptation: the gradual accumulation of new traits (and the preservation of existing ones) that generally result in a population of organisms becoming better suited to its environment and ecological niche.
I now hope you have a firmer grasp of The View of the Atheist
2007-04-05 15:11:29
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7214|Cambridge (UK)

topal63 wrote:

This post might be a lurker stepping into the light - who knows?
If it is I suggest he go back under his bridge.
2007-04-05 15:13:07
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7214|UK
K this rubbish has gone on long enough.

Right and wrong is based on social norms. THE END.
2007-04-05 18:11:54
BVC
Member
+325|7144

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?
All one needs to make a moral judgement is a set of morals.  Atheists have no blindingly obvious set of morals which we are told to follow, thus we either adapt an existing moral set or formulate our own.

Many of us live by the ethic of reciprocity, more commonly known as the golden rule.  It transcends religions, and even if you have no relgion upon which to base your morals, it isn't hard to arrive at.

"Would I like it if someone did that to me?  No, I wouldn't.  If I don't do it to them they won't do it to me."...not hard to work out, is it?

A mset of morals based on the "golden rule" is practically identical to the ten commandments, minus the god stuff of course.

Would you discount an atheist who says that killing, stealing and fucking another man's wife is wrong?
2007-04-05 20:03:08
rawls
Banned
+11|7263|California, USA

CameronPoe 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
Fuck it I'll get involved!

Two simple questions:

Do you believe homosexuals are evil, unnatural sinners?

Do you believe a woman should be stoned to death if she is raped but doesn't scream?
Homosexual evil? yes. Brings nothing positive to society. Nothing.
Stoning a rape victim? no. Thats what the false religion of islam teaches. Not Christianity.
2007-04-05 20:27:06
twiistaaa
Member
+87|7117|mexico

rawls wrote:

Homosexual evil? yes. Brings nothing positive to society. Nothing.
i'm not debating religion, how can a religious person even explore an alternative to god if they believe that questioning or wavering of "faith" (not arguing) the alternative leads to the same damnation as a non-believer?

but i did want to point out that the above quoted statement (i'm not sure if its sarcastic or true) is complete shit. how does a persons sexual preference stop them from helping someone out (charity) or working in a field of contribution like science or medicine? da vinci was very possibly gay, now how can you say he did nothing for society?

we have disability's or abnormal functioning of the simplest organs and parts of the human anatomy how is it not possible for a brain to undergo the same thing? we all start out as females and your saying that its evil if your brain (the most complex thing in the universe) develops slightly different you are now a burden on society and inherently evil?
2007-04-05 21:15:55
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6791|California
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p1318230
2007-04-05 22:18:30
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7121|Colorado
Maybe this will discourage any further fairy tale debates.
2007-04-06 15:17:57
NemeSiS-Factor
Favorite Weapon? Pistol
+29|7118|Everett, WA, US

rawls wrote:

Homosexual evil? yes. Brings nothing positive to society. Nothing.
Stoning a rape victim? no. Thats what the false religion of islam teaches. Not Christianity.
I guess the only reason your religion is not false is because God's word is in your book.  The author was so very very high.

How is it religious people are so closed minded, yet they buy into religion.  I guess the only explanation is gullibility.  And why to Christians have to drive wedges into everything?  You try to separate yourselves from everyone else who does not believe the same thing as you.

"Oh atheists have no definition of right or wrong!"
"Islam is a false religion!"
"Jews........well they suck!"

It's not your duty to point out that everyone else is wrong.  Let us all burn in hell, you don't want us in heaven anyway.  More room for you.

Last edited by NemeSiS-Factor (2007-04-06 15:24:49)

2007-04-07 15:50:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7099|USA

doublestuforeo wrote:

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?
Pretty deep question, the OP asks WHAT moral standard could they hold themselves to without religious morality, this I answered. "Live and let live" has no religious connection. It is based on mutal co-existance. I won't interefe in your life if you don't interfere in mine. It is an understanding.

Ironically enough, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE interfere in everyones' lives more than anyone else does. imagine that.

See, no religious strings attached.
2007-04-07 16:36:35
jonsimon
Member
+224|6943

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."
Simple, good and bad are reflections of our interests. And truth is truth, it is not relative.

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.
And it is equally necessary that I kill you before you can. All's fair in love and nihilism. Your seed is only more powerful if you can succeed in rearing a successful child. In this society the liklihood of success is slim if the father abandons the mother.

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."

So, here is my question.  Do Atheists have the right to make moral judgements?  And if so, on what grounds?
We have the right because we are human, and as human we are imbued with the ability to make judgements.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard