Morality

[HoreTore]

That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.

It most certainly is not moral relativism. I do not claim that other views on sexuality are just as moral as this. In fact, I claim that some of them are immoral.


Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent, and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.

[rvg]

Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent.

Sure it does. Twice a year and in a very visual way.

...and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.

Two things:
1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.
2. There are plenty of cocaine users who aren't addicts by any stretch of imagination (such as 1st time users).


You are a moral relativist. To each their own, but that's what your are. Whether that's a positive thing or a negative is largely a personal preference, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that you are a classic moral relativist.

[HoreTore]

1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.

Yup, I do.

Why shouldn't I get to?

[rvg]

Why shouldn't I get to?

Because you're not them.

[HoreTore]

Because you're not them.

So?

The ability to make rational decisions is not subjective quality. It can, in fact, only be determined by an objective observer according to a set definition.

[Greyblades]

Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.

[HoreTore]

Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.

Hence my extremely brief replies

[Vincent Butler]

The thing is, we are just people. With God, well, since he created everything he gets to decide what is right. By his very nature what he does is always just. I know there are people who claim to be atheists, who will say God does not exist. Sure, I take His existence by faith, the Bible says that we walk by faith, not by sight. They take it by faith that there is no God. Well, who determines for them what is right and wrong? If they determine that themselves, then they are a god. If the government, or whoever else, decides that, then they have become a god. Everybody has a god or gods of one kind or another, they may not realize it. HoreTore, in this case, by defining what, in essence, you believe to be right, you, as a fallible human, become your own god. The question boils down to, who determines what is right? I certainly would not leave it to men. Look at what happens when men attempt to seize that power, they ALWAYS abuse it.

[HoreTore]

Since there is no god, your own morals are decided by men as well.

The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do. This is false.

You may have a god. I do not.

[Beskar]

Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.

But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?

Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.

And the existence of morality doesn't prove there is a higher being either.

The point of view we are missing: do 'believers' only not commit a 'sin' because 'god' told them not to? That is the scarey thought, that without the threat of divine retribution, they would do all the manner of unspeakable things. Maybe that is where the concern is, as HoreTore put out there with psychological projection, they only 'behave' as they think will be punished for it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rubbish.

For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning? It brings enjoyment and pleasure to all. Sex is also a very healthy activity. Christian morals say free sex is wrong. This approach brings no pleasure and makes everyone stuck up wussies. Atheist morals are supreme.

What are these morals of yours based on?

I have God as a universal arbiter. How can you claim in the absolute rightness of your morals without such a figure?

Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.

But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?

Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.

Could go all day with this...

Is your point that Judeo-Christian morals are wrong, or that the very concept of absolute morality is wrong?

Also, the Bible addresses the points you raise against Christianity - namely, that people follow other moral systems, and that these differ to some degree for the Christian one. On your first point, the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)

As for your second point, these other moral systems came to differ from the true law as revealed in the Bible, because of a process of degeneration which began when they corrupted their worship of God:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. For that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for he has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse. For when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and to fourfooted beasts, and to creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them over to uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and who worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18-25)

There are a lot of very relevant themes in that passage right there. Not least the glorification of the created above the creator, which is so central to the supposedly moral beliefs of todays humanists. And from a historical viewpoint as well, it documents how the corrupted pagan and polytheist religions like Hinduism and Greek paganism emerged from a degeneration of the original monotheism of mankind.

[Kadagar_AV]

Here we go again.


1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.

2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.

3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..