Does God exist?

[In Between Man]

I think that prof is ignorant and arrogant, as a lot of them are in my experience. Your friend may have written a cogent, reasoned argument about moral relativism, which can certainly be done, and the prof's response, as you described it, was capricious and unreasoned. It does not make the case for moral absolutes.

Based on the argument made by the paper, morality is basically a matter of opinion. But opinion doesn't define right and wrong, or even just and unjust. Its groundless, and only objective morality can define such things. The point is that knucklehead's REACTION wasn't as if it were relative, or just a matter of opinion. He saw it as UNJUST. What standard was he comparing it to? His GROUNDLESS opinion? My friend's reaction proved he believed in ABSOLUTE justice. Not relative justice.

Now, peoples reactions are a big part of my case, so allow me give you another example. People may claim to be relativists but, no one would ever want their spouse to live as a sexual relativist. They don't want them to be relatively faithful. Yet, nearly every male relativist expects their spouse to live as if adultery were ABSOLUTELY wrong. And would REACT quite negatively if she lived out relativism and committed adultery. And even if there are a few relativists who wouldn’t object to adultery, do you think they would accept the morality of murder or rape if someone wanted to kill or rape them? Of course not. Relativism contradicts our reactions and our common sense.

Reactions even help us identify right and wrong as a nation. When muslim terrorists attacked the states, and flew planes into the WTC buildings with innocent people in them, our emotional reaction fit the immensity of the crime. Our reaction reinforced the truth that the act was ABSOLUTELY wrong. Some may say, “But Bin Laden and his fellow criminals thought the act was morally right.” That’s partially because they were not on the receiving end of the crime. How do you think Bin Laden would have REACTED if america had flown its planes into his buildings with his innocent loved ones in them? He would have known immediately that such an act was undeniably wrong.

So objective morality is not always apparent from our actions, as evidenced by the terrible things human beings do to one another. But it is brightly revealed in our reactions--what we do when we are personally treated unfairly.

In other words, the moral code written on our hearts is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly alwayz the standard by which we EXCEPT others to treat us. It does not describe how we actually behave, but rather it prescribes how we ought to behave.

Later Dex...:smile:

 

[In Between Man]

That whole post is an argument from authority; inadmissible.

Whoops! Sorry 'bout that! ;-)

Like I said, If the founding fathers didn't appeal to a higher authority, they would have had no case against King George. At least a very flawed case. Just like everyone else, I agree that the USA has done some very horrendous things, but when I realized this example, I found a new appreciation for the USA. They champion true, inalienable human rights(at least they did). In the spirit of that true free speech, we can enjoy this awesome debate! ;-)

 

[Cliffy]

There is one flaw in your argument - most of the founding fathers were atheists. Now why did they mention a creator? Probably because they either respected the fact that most American colonists did believe or they didn't want to alienate them.

From some of the writings of those founding fathers that I have read (which isn't a heck of a lot) I deduced that there was a mental tie between God and King and since they were fighting to rid the tyranny of the King, they may have rejected god as part of the package since he was a tyrant too.

 

[Cliffy]

They champion true, inalienable human rights(at least they did).

Alleyway,

Unfortunately their high ideals did not extend to aboriginals, African Americans and anybody else who was not a White Anglo-Saxon Male. To me that piece of paper is meaningless since even they didn't believe it to be true. Like most political writings, they are smoke screens to get gullible people to buy into their particular brand of oppression.

 

[Cliffy]

Does god exist?

Pat has a few words to say about that.

YouTube - Godless and free

 

[Dexter Sinister]

It does not describe how we actually behave, but rather it prescribes how we ought to behave.

But doesn't the fact that we don't always behave as we "ought to" demonstrate the situational nature of ethics?

It's true that many of us perceived the 9/11 attacks as absolute wrongs, but did you see the videos of people celebrating in the streets in certain other countries? They had quite a different view. It's also true that many people view adultery as absolutely wrong, but there are people who call themselves swingers... I think your post makes precisely the opposite point to the one you think it does.

 

[In Between Man]

But doesn't the fact that we don't always behave as we "ought to" demonstrate the situational nature of ethics?

Our choices in situations demonstrates it, but that's it. Different moral behavior doesn't demonstrate relative morality. We all behave at certain times a way that is unfavorable, and yet did you notice we make excuses for our behavior? Why make excuses if no behavior is actually immoral? Making excuses is a tacit admission that the an unchanging, objective moral standard exists.

It's true that many of us perceived the 9/11 attacks as absolute wrongs, but did you see the videos of people celebrating in the streets in certain other countries? They had quite a different view.

Right they have a different view, but they claim to be absolutely right, as does this side. Neither side is claiming to be relatively right. Again differnet views or behavior DON"T demonstrate relative morality. In fact, it provides evidence for the opposite, in that both sides are trying uphold what they believe to be an absolute value. Further, different views DON'T determine what's right and wrong. If it did, the allies would have never been justified in condemning the actions of the nazis during the Nuremberg trials.

Even just recently, when we seen religious fanatical scum do their attacks in Mumbai, we all condemn these acts, but by what standard? What gives us the right to condemn such acts? In the essence of free speech, our view is just as valued as any one else's, so our opinion isn't and can't be what we APPEAL TO when we recognize evil.

When we condemn such acts, we are in fact comparing it to a standard. That standard is the moral code written on our hearts.

It's also true that many people view adultery as absolutely wrong, but there are people who call themselves swingers...

However, the reality of most swinger situations has a double standard. Just look at hedonist Hugh Heftner. He's free to sleep with as many women, or girlfriends as he wants, yet, every single one of those women is expected to remain faithful to him while dating. And Hugh himself would REACT quite negatively if cheated upon, thus showing the moral code written within.

I think your post makes precisely the opposite point to the one you think it does.

Its easy to preceive things like different and changing behaviors and mistake them relative morality.

 

[JLM]

Yep- maybe Mother Nature is a better term.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Yep- maybe Mother Nature is a better term.

Maybe naturally occurring phenomenon is better yet...;-)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Right they have a different view, but they claim to be absolutely right, as does this side.

Isn't that the point? The claim of absolute rightness from sides with diametrically opposed views means they cannot possibly both be right, there is not an absolute standard, people are getting their values from somewhere else.

 

[Cliffy]

people are getting their values from somewhere else

Yup! Today they get it from movies, TV, Nintendo, Brittney Spears... are we in deep doggy doo doo!

 

[In Between Man]

Isn't that the point? The claim of absolute rightness from sides with diametrically opposed views means they cannot possibly both be right,

Exactly! Its not all relative. One side IS wrong. Answer me this: Were the actions of Hitler and the nazis truly wrong, or is it just opinion that it is wrong?

If morality is truly just opinion and therefore relative, by that very logic we have no right to condemn such acts. In fact, by that logic you would have no right to speak out when mistreated. By the very logic of relative morality, I am free to treat others as badly as I wish. The good news being it would be unwise to do so, mainly because such acts truly are wrong.

there is not an absolute standard, people are getting their values from somewhere else.

Again, just because two side have different absolute values or moral disagreements, this in no way demonstrates relative morality. You seem to have quickly overlooked the fact that no one stands up for relative values, only absolute ones.

The real question is: Which absolute value takes precedence? Which one is in line with the moral code? Is one side justified in condemning the other? If not, then I'm afraid by that logic there is no difference b/w the actions of Hitler or mother Theresa.

Relativists may adhere to this, but I say its nonsense. What the christian crusaders did was wrong, what Hitler did was wrong, what the Mumbai terrorists did was wrong.

 

[Cliffy]

Relativists may adhere to this, but I say its nonsense. What the christian crusaders did was wrong, what Hitler did was wrong, what the Mumbai terrorists did was wrong.

alleywayz,

That is your opinion. The Crusaders, Hitler and "terrorists" think they are/were right and justified. Who are we to judge from this point in time. They follow their social mores, we ours. Who is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

 

[Inteligento]

Pat has a few words to say about that.

I'll drink to that !

 

[Inteligento]

Celestial Teapot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?"[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
“ If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. ” Russell's teapot analogy is still used in the debate over religious belief. Richard Dawkins used it in his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain,[2]
“ The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. ” Dawkins' use of the analogy was criticized by theologian Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion?[3]
The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn,[4] the Flying Spaghetti Monster[5] and The Dragon in My Garage.[6]

 

[Scott Free]

Relativists may adhere to this, but I say its nonsense. What the christian crusaders did was wrong, what Hitler did was wrong, what the Mumbai terrorists did was wrong.

alleywayz,

That is your opinion. The Crusaders, Hitler and "terrorists" think they are/were right and justified. Who are we to judge from this point in time. They follow their social mores, we ours. Who is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

I would add too that it is the victors who claim those people were wrong but what if they had won? Then it would be us declared wrong and by what proof? What evidence would be given?

For example the allies committed huge war crimes (now mostly lost in the mists of time and denial) that I'm sure Hitler could have rightly condemned. Imagine if the USA had lost their little skirmish with Japan? What would be made of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then?

No, our moral indignation which we hold so dearly as a compass of sorts does not find north i.e., "good," but rather points to the victor.

We can hold that the good guys won simply because we are them and we get to tell the story how we want.

 

[Cliffy]

No, our moral indignation which we hold so dearly as a compass of sorts does not find north i.e., "good," but rather points to the victor.

We can hold that the good guys won simply because we are them and we get to tell the story how we want.

Bingo! To the victor go the spoils and bragging rights. We're better than youuu! Nannannannana!

 

[scratch]

More often than not very true.

rgs
scratch

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But doesn't the fact that we don't always behave as we "ought to" demonstrate the situational nature of ethics?

It's also true that many people view adultery as absolutely wrong, but there are people who call themselves swingers... I think your post makes precisely the opposite point to the one you think it does.

Dexter, I don’t think swinging is the same as adultery. My understanding is that adultery is cheating on your spouse, to have sex with somebody without your spouse’s knowledge. Swingers have sex with other partners with their spouse’s knowledge, indeed, with their spouse’s consent, with the spouse’s blessings. I don’t think that is adultery.

 

[scratch]

It's all in the interpretation.

scratch