On a 'relative' basis. Other than that you haven't established anything.
Peace be unto you
God Made Me - A Teachers Guide To Indoctrination
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
On a 'relative' basis. Other than that you haven't established anything.
Peace be unto you
786,
I myself no longer believe that morality is relative. I firmly believe that there is a set of morals that is positive and good and righteous, and these are the morals that I believe in; and I believe that ANYONE who disagrees is clearly wrong, immoral, and evil.
And I'm an atheist.
I myself no longer believe that morality is relative. I firmly believe that there is a set of morals that is positive and good and righteous, and these are the morals that I believe in; and I believe that ANYONE who disagrees is clearly wrong, immoral, and evil.
And I'm an atheist.
So where do your morals come from?
All you're doing here is declaring yourself the final arbiter of what is moral and what isn't.
And you claim that's not relativism?
Morals come from principles; anything which furthers liberty is moral, anything which detracts from liberty is immoral. And I am referring to real liberty, not anarchy.
And those principles would be derived from...?
Relativism again.
I'll take a wild guess here. That's your personal perspective on the subject, not an absolute.
It isn't relative. You obviously have no moral compass.
Really?
Please show us where this absolute standard originates.
Hey! Well done. I took a wild guess and now you reciprocate. Unfortunately mine was far more accurate than yours.
Never mind Norse, it's been a while since we crossed paths so you're probably a little rusty at thinking.
It originates from moral principles and goodness.
Hey! Well done. I took a wild guess and now you reciprocate. Unfortunately mine was far more accurate than yours.
Never mind Norse, it's been a while since we crossed paths so you're probably a little rusty at thinking.
I don't need to think about your immorality.
And these originate where?
At the moment all you're doing is presenting a circular argument.
Apparently you're not thinking much at all.
god!
Pfft! Re-read his posts. He's an atheist, so that wouldn't be his claim.
Oh... wait. Was that an exasperated exclamation that I could ask such a question, rather than an intended answer?
Of course it is circular when you believe in corrupt principles.
Goodness is a feeling, not a "thought".
Pfft! Re-read his posts. He's an atheist, so that wouldn't be his claim.
Oh... wait. Was that an exasperated exclamation that I could ask such a question, rather than an intended answer?
that's my claim, not his (obviously).
like an emotional or a tangible feeling? that speaks to relativity to me.
i think goodness is law.
So you can't actually support your contention.
Ah well. Gone are the days (were they ever here?) of any pretence at intellectual discussion...
Hmm, I wonder what happened to the old Norse:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94477
Oh, still not thinking Norse. You used to be more fun. Correction: you tried harder.
Last edited:
Norsefire there is no atheistic ground that will cement that your principles are correct and others are wrong. or that your principles are the right principles to have. You may be an extremist in the sense that you believe it to be true and that everyone else is evil. But you can't base that on atheistic belief.
You would be essentially believing in your principles without any 'real' support. Its funny you reject God for the lack of evidence yet you do not do so of your own morality.
The only logical atheistic perspective on morality (at least what I consider logical) is relative morality. But relative morality is akin to no morality in the end. Or at least in the case of this thread it is laughable for atheists to claim something is 'right' or 'wrong' and impose that on others that it is that way.
Peace be unto you
You would be essentially believing in your principles without any 'real' support. Its funny you reject God for the lack of evidence yet you do not do so of your own morality.
The only logical atheistic perspective on morality (at least what I consider logical) is relative morality. But relative morality is akin to no morality in the end. Or at least in the case of this thread it is laughable for atheists to claim something is 'right' or 'wrong' and impose that on others that it is that way.
Peace be unto you
I don't recall saying anything was 'wrong'. Only that certain teachings aren't useful in a child's upbringing - one of them being the introduction of deities to validate life. I'm not sure what relevance their dying and decomposing has to do with the quality & content of the information they receive from their educational institutions?
If my children were being taught that the colour of their skin made them superior to another - I would oppose such teachings as they would not help the child to 'form a useful picture of itself & life in general'.
Good question...
Maybe it's important for the very reason you seem to think it isn't important: That everyone dies. That a being has roughly one hundred years with which to experience life - I would prefer that time be spent in an environment of peace, growth and understanding; as opposed to an environment of hate, war and slavery.
Are you of the opinion that death invalidates any attempts at consciously attempting the betterment of humanity while alive?