#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
To take a position concerning what good and evil are, and why, is religious activity
true
Side Score: 107
|
 |
false
Side Score: 112
|
|
|
2
points
Uh huh. You finally got something right. Irreligious Cartman that goes on cursing fits I love how you fucking idiots think there can be something wrong with words, but have no problems with making shitty arguments. debates when he gets owned You have nip point of reference for this, you have never won an argument. Yeah, you look it.. This sentence makes no sense in this context. Side: false
1
point
1
point
That's an ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Side: false
1
point
There's no such thing as a trasncendent moral standard. That's the point. You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence. There's nothing transcendent or objective about any of that. Side: false
3
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
That doesn't really answer the question. How did you determine that his nature is moral? How did you determine he lived a sinless life without making a moral judgement based on what God defines as sin? You're basically saying God is sinless because he says so. Even if we let God define what sin is, he still isn't sinless because he does things which he says are sins, like lying, deceiving, killing, etc. For example, in John 14:12-14 he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." Is that a true statement? If so, please ask God to heal my fibromyalgia today. If it works, I will become a believer. If it doesn't work, then he lied. Side: true
1
point
The timing of it is what would convince me. I made sure to specify a time frame of just 1 day instead of an unspecified time frame, because Fibromyalgia can sometimes go away on its own, but it doesn't just magically disappear in one day. I've been in pain for many years, so if the pain just happened to completely disappear on the one day that I asked Srom to heal me, I would find that pretty compelling evidence. Since you're a Christian, so you should be able to heal me too. If you don't want to heal me, then ask god to heal all the kids who are dying from cancer. Jesus said, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do," and that you only need faith the size of a mustard seed (Matt 17:20). If Jesus was telling the truth, Christians could wipe out every disease on Earth, and prevent billions of people from suffering just by asking God in Jesus' name, but for some reason they don't. Why do you think that is? Side: true
1
point
Sure. I just wanted to clarify that one thing. Its not that I, or any Christian for that matter, can't or don't want to heal you. You're assuming that God is obligated to heal people just because we asked Him to. You brought up prayer, but you have to be willing to look at the context of the verse as well James 4:1-4. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to attack you. If you are not willing to do this, your question will not be answered the way you want it. Side: true
1
point
"Its not that I, or any Christian for that matter, can't or don't want to heal you." Then way aren't Christians healing all the suffering children in the world? "You're assuming that God is obligated to heal people just because we asked Him to." It's not an assumpmtion, he specifically said he would do it. Besides, it's not like my request is unreasonable. Don't you think a benevolent god would not only be willing to heal people, but have a strong desire to so? Even us flawed humans hate to see people suffering. We spend billions of dollars every year trying to find a cure for cancer. Don't you think a loving god would want to do what he can to reduce suffering? "You brought up prayer, but you have to be willing to look at the context of the verse as well James 4:1-4." I assume the relevant part you are referring to is "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." Do you think asking God to stop people from suffering is a wrong motive? Side: true
Then way aren't Christians healing all the suffering children in the world? What do you mean by healing and suffering? It's not an assumpmtion, he specifically said he would do it. So you're saying that God is obligated to do whatever it is that we ask Him to do, simply because we asked Him to do it regardless of the consequences? Don't you think a loving god would want to do what he can to reduce suffering? Didn't God create us and make us able to help those who need it regardless of how small that help may be? Do you think asking God to stop people from suffering is a wrong motive? Does asking for something good with the wrong motive make what you asked for right? Side: true
1
point
"What do you mean by healing and suffering?" Heal: to make healthy, whole, or sound; restore to health; free from ailment. Suffer: to undergo or feel pain or distress "So you're saying that God is obligated to do whatever it is that we ask Him to do, simply because we asked Him to do it regardless of the consequences?" I didn't say it, he did. If that's not what he meant, then he should have been more clear. After all, he said he's not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). "Didn't God create us and make us able to help those who need it regardless of how small that help may be?" Is that really the best an omnipotent god can do? That's like a surgeon putting a tiny band-aid on the stump of a severed leg, instead of reattaching the leg. Plus there are many things that cause suffering in the world that we are powerless to do anything about. As a theist, you also have to wonder where many of the things came from, like viruses, parasites, flesh eating bacteria, etc. Some of those are living organisms, and every Christian I know thinks only God can create life. Why would a benevolent God create such terrible things? "Does asking for something good with the wrong motive make what you asked for right?" If someone asked me to heal children suffering from cancer, I would do it regardless of the motive behind the person that asked me to do it. Wouldn't you? Is there something wrong with wanting proof that something exists? Don't you require proof for most other beliefs that have an impact on your life? Side: true
I didn't say it, he did. If that's not what he meant, then he should have been more clear. After all, he said he's not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Would God be all-loving if He answered your prayer knowing your motives were selfish or that the consequences weren't beneficial? Is that really the best an omnipotent god can do? Maybe not, but isn't it hypocritical to get mad at God for not doing anything if you aren't doing anything either? Why would a benevolent God create such terrible things? Were they originally like that or did they become things that can harm us? If someone asked me to heal children suffering from cancer, I would do it regardless of the motive behind the person that asked me to do it. Wouldn't you? Would I be free to do it of my own volition or would I be obligated to do so? Is there something wrong with wanting proof that something exists? Not necessarily, but how much evidence is enough? Whats to prevent someone from becoming an eternal skeptic? Don't you require proof for most other beliefs that have an impact on your life? I do. Thats why I've asked you so many questions. However, where do you draw the line between reasonable doubt and possible doubt? Side: true
1
point
"Would God be all-loving if He answered your prayer knowing your motives were selfish or that the consequences weren't beneficial?" Of course not. I'm not saying God has to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that his statement was a lie, because he won't do whatever you ask in his name, like he said he would. If I tell my nephew I'm going to take him to the toy store and buy him any one item he wants. Then, when he picks an Xbox I give him a bunch of excuses as to why I won't buy him that item, do you think I was being honest with him when I said I would buy him any item he wants? "Maybe not, but isn't it hypocritical to get mad at God for not doing anything if you aren't doing anything either?" What makes you think I'm not doing anything? Besides, this isn't about me, so that's a red herring. I'm not omnipotent, omnibenevolent and eternal. If I was, there would be absolutely no suffering in the universe. The existence of suffering is incompatible with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. "Were they originally like that or did they become things that can harm us?" If God is omniscient like most Christians claim, then whether he created them that way or they mutated into those things, he would have known beforehand that they would end up that way. Plus there is nothing stopping him from eliminating them now. There are also numerous cases in the Bible where he does create those kinds of things. "Would I be free to do it of my own volition or would I be obligated to do so?" You would be free to do it of my own volition, but if you didn't do it, do you think you would be able to say you are a benevolent God that cares deeply about your creations? "Not necessarily, but how much evidence is enough? Whats to prevent someone from becoming an eternal skeptic?" No evidence is needed at all. An omnipotent God could just put the knowledge in our minds, so that we know with 100% certainty that he exists. The fact that so many people don't believe he exists tells me that he isn't doesn't exist, or doesn't care if we know if he exists. "where do you draw the line between reasonable doubt and possible doubt?" It not really possible to define a line, because it depends on the claim. Some claims require more evidence than others. If you claim you had Cheerios for breakfast, I'm willing to accept that claim at face value, because it's mundane and has no impact on my life or the life of others. However, if you claim that an invisible dragon is going to eat me if I don't do the hokey pokey every day at 3:00AM, I'm going to be more skeptical. Side: true
Of course not. I'm not saying God has to do anything. I'm merely pointing out that his statement was a lie, because he won't do whatever you ask in his name, like he said he would. I then ask you what I did earlier when you put the verse up. Did you look at the context as well as James 4:1-4? What makes you think I'm not doing anything? Besides, this isn't about me, so that's a red herring. Maybe you are doing something, maybe you're not. I wasn't just trying to point the finger at you, I was pointing it at me as well. If neither of us are doing anything, why get mad at God for not doing anything? I'm not omnipotent, omnibenevolent and eternal. If I was, there would be absolutely no suffering in the universe. The existence of suffering is incompatible with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Why would an omnibenevolent God constantly circumvent the choices of morally free creatures? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of giving us the choice to begin with? If God is omniscient like most Christians claim, then whether he created them that way or they mutated into those things, he would have known beforehand that they would end up that way. Plus there is nothing stopping him from eliminating them now. There are also numerous cases in the Bible where he does create those kinds of things. Whats your point? You would be free to do it of my own volition, but if you didn't do it, do you think you would be able to say you are a benevolent God that cares deeply about your creations? Would giving in to a selfish desire or a desire that I knew wasn't going to be the best thing for them show that I was benevolent and care deeply about my creation? No evidence is needed at all. An omnipotent God could just put the knowledge in our minds, so that we know with 100% certainty that he exists. If God were to do that would you actually believe in Him and put your faith in Him or would you just believe that He exists? The fact that so many people don't believe he exists tells me that he isn't doesn't exist, or doesn't care if we know if he exists. Why wouldn't it be on us to give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already given to us? It not really possible to define a line, because it depends on the claim. Some claims require more evidence than others. That may be true, but you do agree that there is a point where we can make a decision beyond any reasonable doubt? Side: true
1
point
"I then ask you what I did earlier when you put the verse up. Did you look at the context as well as James 4:1-4?" Yes I did. I see nothing in the original verse that changes what he said. The verse in James is irrelevant because it's a completely separate conversation. Let's go back to my example about taking my nephew to the toy store. If at a later time I tell some other kid I will also buy them the toy of her choice, but then I set some limitations, the limitations I set in that conversation are irrelevant to the conversation I originally had with my nephew. I think we're going off on too many tangents and eventually we'll be posting huge walls of text, so to keep things more focused I'll drop that argument and pretend that he included some exceptions in the original verse. "why get mad at God for not doing anything?" If you saw saw a video of someone that was about to be raped, and there was a bystander that could easily stop it, but they just stood there and watched it happen, would you see their lack of intervention as benevolent or malevolent? "Why would an omnibenevolent God constantly circumvent the choices of morally free creatures? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of giving us the choice to begin with?" An omnibenevolent wouldn't create life that is capable of suffering, or wouldn't create life at all. zero life = zero suffering "Whats your point?" That if he exists, and is the creator of all life, then he is responsible for causing tremendous amounts of suffering. Therefore, he is cruel and malevolent, not benevolent. If a scientist created a disease and unleashed it on the public, we would see him as a monster. So why does God get a free pass when he does the same thing? "Would giving in to a selfish desire or a desire that I knew wasn't going to be the best thing for them show that I was benevolent and care deeply about my creation?" We were talking about children suffering from cancer. Are you suggesting that letting children suffer from cancer because God doesn't want to provide evidence that he exists is a benevolent action? "If God were to do that would you actually believe in Him and put your faith in Him or would you just believe that He exists?" I would believe he exists, but he would have a lot of explaining to do before I would put my faith in him. Just because he exists, doesn't mean he is worthy or worship. He could be cruel and malevolent, and based on his actions in the Bible, that seems to be the case. "Why wouldn't it be on us to give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already given to us?" I've given it a very thorough look, and it doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. I've studied religion far more than any subject, and have yet so see any evidence that would even be considered moderately sufficient. "That may be true, but you do agree that there is a point where we can make a decision beyond any reasonable doubt?" Absolutely. I'm sure I could think of hundreds of things that would convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that a god exists. I even gave you an example of one, heal my Fibromyalgia on a specific day. Better yet, heal everyone in the world. If Christians really have the power to heal people, there would be no need for doctors. Christians should be able to heal everyone in the world by just asking God in Jesus' name. Why do you think there aren't any Christian hospitals where they heal everyone with the power of prayer? It would save billions of people from suffering. Side: true
Yes I did. I see nothing in the original verse that changes what he said. Whats the first thing you think of when I say context? The verse in James is irrelevant because it's a completely separate conversation. If they are both talking about going to God for something why only focus on one? If you saw saw a video of someone that was about to be raped, and there was a bystander that could easily stop it, but they just stood there and watched it happen, would you see their lack of intervention as benevolent or malevolent? You mean knowing that in the same situation, chances are we would have done the same thing as the bystander? An omnibenevolent wouldn't create life that is capable of suffering, or wouldn't create life at all. zero life = zero suffering So you're saying that not being alive is better than being alive but being morally accountable for your own actions? If a scientist created a disease and unleashed it on the public, we would see him as a monster. So why does God get a free pass when he does the same thing? If God does not exist, why is anything that happens whether it be in the bible or anywhere wrong? Are you suggesting that letting children suffer from cancer because God doesn't want to provide evidence that he exists is a benevolent action? Did He not provide evidence or did you not give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already there? I would believe he exists, but he would have a lot of explaining to do before I would put my faith in him. Just because he exists, doesn't mean he is worthy or worship. He could be cruel and malevolent, and based on his actions in the Bible, that seems to be the case. If you're just going to believe that He exists but you're not going to believe in Him, why would He show Himself to you personally? I've given it a very thorough look, and it doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. I've studied religion far more than any subject, and have yet so see any evidence that would even be considered moderately sufficient. What religion or religions did you study? What do you mean by very thorough look? Absolutely. I'm sure I could think of hundreds of things that would convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that a god exists. What are some examples other than the one about your fibromyalgia? Side: true
1
point
"Whats the first thing you think of when I say context?" The relevant context depends on what is being said. In this particular case it's the verses around it that are relevant to that conversation. If the conversation had mentioned something about an event or conversation in the past, then the context would expand to the verses relevant to the thing that was mentioned. "If they are both talking about going to God for something why only focus on one?" I already explained that with my toy store analogy. "You mean knowing that in the same situation, chances are we would have done the same thing as the bystander?" No, I would absolutely help the person. Anyone with the slightest bit of empathy would. You didn't answer my question. Would you view the lack of intervention by the bystander as benevolent or malevolent? "So you're saying that not being alive is better than being alive but being morally accountable for your own actions?" No, that's not even remotely close to what I said. I'm saying if creating life ends in suffering, then creating life is a malevolent action. The only moral accountability in this scenario is that of God's. "If God does not exist, why is anything that happens whether it be in the bible or anywhere wrong?" You didn't answer the question. I'll answer your question when you answer mine, although your question is a whole other debate, so maybe we should save that one until we've wrapped up some of our existing topics, so this thing doesn't spiral out of control on a million different topics. "Did He not provide evidence or did you not give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already there?" That's another red herring. We're not talking about other evidence. We're talking specifically about healing children suffering from cancer, so please answer the question I asked. "If you're just going to believe that He exists but you're not going to believe in Him, why would He show Himself to you personally?" Because introducing yourself is the first step to establishing a relationship. If he really wanted a relationship with me he would introduce himself and help me understand why his actions weren't really malevolent. "What religion or religions did you study? What do you mean by very thorough look?" The only religion I've studied in great depth is Christianity. I've briefly looked at others, but that all suffered from the same issues as Christianity, so I didn't go into much depth on them. I was a very devout Christian at one point in my life. I spent most of my free time at the library of my local Christian college studying, praying, and trying to figure out the best way to spread the gospel and convert my non-Christian friends. I went to weekly Bible studies, would regularly bring home a stacks of Christian books from the library, would tell all my friends "Jesus love you" instead of "See you later." I was obsessed with God, a literal Jesus freak. All that time spent studying is what led me to becoming an atheist. The more I studied, the more problems I found, until it got to the point where I just couldn't do any more mental gymnastics. "What are some examples other than the one about your fibromyalgia?" -Coming down to earth and eliminating all the diseases in the world with the wave of his hand. -Stopping a Tsunami in it's tracks. -Making whatever star I point to turn purple. -Rearranging the stars to spell out "I exist" Side: true
The relevant context depends on what is being said. In this particular case it's the verses around it that are relevant to that conversation. So you're saying that if the topic is talked about somewhere else in the same book, the two have nothing to do with each other? I already explained that with my toy store analogy. Your analogy assumes that because the verses in the bible are separated and don't reference each other they are then completely unrelated. No, I would absolutely help the person. Anyone with the slightest bit of empathy would. Anyone could say that they would help someone in need. Have you heard of the murder of Kitty Genovese? Would you view the lack of intervention by the bystander as benevolent or malevolent? I would see them as in shock and not knowing what to do I'm saying if creating life ends in suffering, then creating life is a malevolent action. Even if the life that is created is are morally free creatures that brought the suffering on themselves? The only moral accountability in this scenario is that of God's. The problem is you're starting with the assumption that God has no morally justifiable reason for anything He does You didn't answer the question. I'll answer your question when you answer mine Fair point. To answer your question, you're assuming that God has no morally justifiable reason for anything that happens. This lead me to the question that I asked you, if God does not exist, why is anything that happens whether it be in the bible or anywhere wrong? That's another red herring. We're not talking about other evidence. We're talking specifically about healing children suffering from cancer, so please answer the question I asked. Stating that its a red herring is simply an assertion. Other evidence is necessary. If you are going to treat whether or not your kid with cancer gets cured as the only piece of evidence, its shows that you didn't give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already there If he really wanted a relationship with me he would introduce himself and help me understand why his actions weren't really malevolent. He did introduce Himself and He did give reasons why He did what He did. Just read the bible. Why do you think its more reasonable to ignore evidence? -Coming down to earth and eliminating all the diseases in the world with the wave of his hand. -Stopping a Tsunami in it's tracks. -Making whatever star I point to turn purple. -Rearranging the stars to spell out "I exist" The fact that you require this kind of evidence and say its reasonable tells me that nothing is going to convince you Side: true
1
point
"So you're saying that if the topic is talked about somewhere else in the same book, the two have nothing to do with each other?" I depends on what it being said, but in this case yes. Let's see if this scenario makes it more clear. I tell you I'll give you $1,000, and all you have to do is ask for it. Then, you ask me for it and tell me you're going to buy a gold-coated game controller with it. I tell you I'm not going to give you the money, because that's a wasteful way to spend it. I then tell you that I offered the same thing to some other person, but I told that person they couldn't spend it on anything wasteful. 1. Was I being honest with you when I said I would give you the money and all you had to do was ask? 2. Is it fair to apply the same restriction on you, without telling you about it, just because I put the restriction on someone else in the past? "Anyone could say that they would help someone in need. Have you heard of the murder of Kitty Genovese?" You're missing the point. Would a benevolent person help them? "I would see them as in shock and not knowing what to do" Okay, let me rephrase the question. Would you view the lack of intervention by the bystander (who is invincible and armed with an AK-47) as benevolent or malevolent? "Even if the life that is created is are morally free creatures that brought the suffering on themselves?" Absolutely. Creating anything that you know will cause suffering is malevolent. An omnipotent god that transcends time would know before creating someone what their life will be like, whether they will be a child molester, mass murder, rapist, or even Satan himself. Why would a benevolent god create those people knowing beforehand how much devastation they would cause? "The problem is you're starting with the assumption that God has no morally justifiable reason for anything He does" Unless he's willing to explain his reasons, I have no reason to assume he has a morally justifiable reason, or even exists. If a scientist created a disease and unleashed it on the public, which you thought was a terrible thing, then I said to you, "The problem is you're starting with the assumption that he has no morally justifiable reason for anything he does," Would you accept that, or would you expect an explanation of those reasons? "This lead me to the question that I asked you, if God does not exist, why is anything that happens whether it be in the bible or anywhere wrong?" Because, just like every other word, the word "wrong" has a definition. Wrong: "Unjust, dishonest, or immoral. Synonyms: illegal, unlawful, illicit, criminal, dishonest, dishonorable, corrupt" If it matches the definition of the word wrong, then we call it wrong. Just like if it something matches the definition of a car, we call it a car. "Stating that its a red herring is simply an assertion. Other evidence is necessary. If you are going to treat whether or not your kid with cancer gets cured as the only piece of evidence, its shows that you didn't give a reasonable look at the evidence thats already there" I never said it's the only piece of evidence. I asked you a specific question about a specific scenario, "Are you suggesting that letting children suffer from cancer because God doesn't want to provide evidence that he exists is a benevolent action?" You didn't answer the question. It's a yes or no question. If you want to expand upon your answer, that's fine, but at least answer yes or no. "He did introduce Himself and He did give reasons why He did what He did. Just read the bible. Why do you think its more reasonable to ignore evidence?" He also introduced himself in the Quran, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Guru Granth Sahib, and Book of Mormon. Do you consider those credible evidence? "The fact that you require this kind of evidence and say its reasonable tells me that nothing is going to convince you" The evidence required depends on the claim. For someone to prove they are a god, they need to do something only a god can do, otherwise how do I know they aren't just a good illusionist? What is so wrong with wanting proof for something before believing it? Side: true
1. Was I being honest with you when I said I would give you the money and all you had to do was ask? Is the person giving the money omniscient and all good? 2. Is it fair to apply the same restriction on you, without telling you about it, just because I put the restriction on someone else in the past? Did the person receiving the money have any knowledge of the prior transaction? You're missing the point. Would a benevolent person help them? Did anyone help Kitty Genovese? I'm sure they all thought they were benevolent people Would you view the lack of intervention by the bystander (who is invincible and armed with an AK-47) as benevolent or malevolent? Is the bystander still human? Absolutely. Creating anything that you know will cause suffering is malevolent. An omnipotent god that transcends time would know before creating someone what their life will be like, whether they will be a child molester, mass murder, rapist, or even Satan himself. So you're saying that morally free creatures are never responsible for any kind of evil they do no matter how small? Unless he's willing to explain his reasons, I have no reason to assume he has a morally justifiable reason, or even exists. If He doesn't exist, why is anything He does or doesn't do wrong? If a scientist created a disease and unleashed it on the public, which you thought was a terrible thing, then I said to you, "The problem is you're starting with the assumption that he has no morally justifiable reason for anything he does," Would you accept that, or would you expect an explanation of those reasons? Would any kind of reaction on my part disprove the fact that God still has a morally justifiable for allowing everything to happen? Because, just like every other word, the word "wrong" has a definition. I understand you would know that something is wrong, but why would it be wrong? I asked you a specific question about a specific scenario, "Are you suggesting that letting children suffer from cancer because God doesn't want to provide evidence that he exists is a benevolent action?" Whats more important, believing that God exists or believing in God? Do you consider those credible evidence? I don't What is so wrong with wanting proof for something before believing it? Is it reasonable to let possible doubt get in the way to the point where nothing would convince you? Side: true
1
point
1
point
You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence. For "backwards fuckwits from 4000 years ago" they seem to have some pretty comprehensive understanding of disease control, more so than any other nation at the time. Like separating people from the camp when they were sick, washing when someone touched something dead or diseased. Pretty good considering hand washing wasn't even a thing till the 1800's. Almost like a transcendent being with advanced knowledge on the subject gave it to them. Side: true
Yea, because washing your hands and excluding people with boils on their skin are evidences of a metaphysical creator-God sending secret messages to your tribe. Or maybe, as we have known for decades, humans have instinctual aversion to decomposing bodies and to people with observable diseases. Hardly a revelation. Side: false
1
point
Except it wasn't just decomposing bodies and it wasn't just "avoid them" and slight aversion. During the Middle Ages when the Black Plague happened people had NO CONCEPT of disease control and because of this people thought sickness was caused by an unbalance of "humors" or quadrants you can think of. Later a singular doctor had an idea of disease "jumping" but he still had no idea how disease worked because he started the famous Plague Doctor suit with the beak. Which he would wear EVERYWHERE and carry the disease with him, spreading it along with whatever doctors believed his theory and used his suit. With that being said the Mosiac Law came 2000+ years before the Black Plague and is the first ever recorded use of the quarantine. Ever. And the wording used isn't "yeah you should probably do this if you want". No it was "we are all going to die if you don't do this". There's also alot more than just avoiding dead bodies and obvious disease, you should actually read it sometime. Anyways my point is NOT that there's irrefutable evidence of God, my point is outright saying there is 0% chance of an existential power existing is just not true and intellectually dishonest and actually a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance). Side: true
No one actually follows a transcendent moral standard, they just say they want to. To answer your question, there are many criteria that can be used to justify morals. The main one is whatever hurts society is morally bad. Will society thrive if we allow people to kill each other? No. Morally bad. Will the society thrive if people steal from each other? No. Morally bad. Side: false
3
points
1
point
If it is subjective, it isn't morality. Morality is objective by definition. Welcome to the English language. https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/8/ Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct You have no doctrine. You have no moral system. Side: true
1
point
https://www.merriam-webster.com/ Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct You have no doctrine. You have no moral system. Side: true
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Then what does that say about you that you are arguing with a dead brain, that you are insane and argue with abstract objects? Or are you claiming that I am the voice inside your head that stops you from playing with yourself nonstop? If so, apparently you don't listen to my voice... Side: true
1
point
1
point
1
point
3
points
3
points
1
point
A basic Google of definition of evil brings this up on top: adjective 1. profoundly immoral and malevolent. "his evil deeds" synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More noun 1. profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. "the world is stalked by relentless evil" synonyms: wickedness, bad, badness, wrongdoing, sin, ill, immorality, vice, iniquity, degeneracy, corruption, depravity, villainy, nefariousness, malevolence... More of that definition content is independent of religious belief than dependent upon it. Side: false
A basic Google definition of religion brings this up on top: noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion" Side: true
You assume that a moral standard must necessarily be of a religious nature, and that evil must have a religious meaning. This is incorrect. Though most scientists maintain a separation between the "is" of science and the "ought" of morality, some scientists and philosophers are able to make a secular moral argument on scientific grounds. Religion need not be the standard by which we gauge evil. Side: true
I agree with you. Religion doesn't need to be the standard by how we gauge evil because then you could ask which religion is true. This is why we need a transcendent standard outside of even religion. Its good that scientists can separate the two, but why even be moral if there is no objective reason to believe anyone is holding them to it? Yeah they have other people to hold them to a standard, but what reason does he have to hold himself to their standard? Side: true
Asking whose standard is like asking who created man. Morality is an evolved human trait. We evolved this trait to help us survive and thrive. Some moral codes are better at this than others, just as some sets of eyes can see better than others. Whose standard do you use to know who has better eyesight? Whose standard do you use to know whose moral code is more conducive to surviving and thriving? Reality provides these answers, and science can help us know them. Side: true
Are we superior or more evolved to people who kill? Intelligence is an evolved human trait, but it takes education to take full advantage of this development. People who are uneducated or simply less intelligent, are not less evolved. The same applies to morality. If by "kill" you mean "murder", then no we are not more evolved. But we are morally superior, just as you are intellectually superior to the slow or ignorant. If thats the case, how did evolutionary ethics evolve? This question is not clear. Would you mind re-wording it? Side: true
My point is that, no matter what argument you bring up, you are always appealing to a standard outside of yourself as well as others. Even with this question, you are assuming that there is a standard of healthy that both of us can look to determine whether or not consuming poison is healthy. So to answer your question, no one did, it just is Side: true
If the standard is outside of yourself, it is objective or transcendent. If it isn't a matter of "whose standard" because it "just is", then it is non-religious. Science seeks to discover what "just is". This would be a secular morality. Thus, religion takes a moral position, but a moral position is not necessarily religious. Side: true
If you mean to ask who decided to study the evolution of morality, I don't know of a first. If you mean to ask who brought about the evolution of morality, then it's the same person who brought about the evolution of legs. Which is to say that "who" is not the proper question, but rather "what". Side: true
It's similar to language. A portion of the brain has evolved to be dedicated to moral reasoning. In that sense, it is biological. But that portion of the brain must be shaped by social phenomenon, just like language. So I am not saying that it is entirely biological, though it certainly has biological aspects. Side: false
It wasn't decided. It is there to be discovered. Just like other scientific principles. I will refer to language again. Language evolved because it helps us communicate. Modern language is better at communicating than ancient language. We can communicate more and in greater nuance. There is an important biological and social aspect to language. Which would you say decided languages purpose is its own standard? Did biology or society decide that a language that cannot be used to communicate isn't a good language? The main, functional purpose of a house is to keep out the weather. Prior to any other consideration, a house is measured by this standard. Was it the weather or the neighbors that decided a leaky roof or a drafty house is inferior? Or was it the biological need to keep out the wind and the rain? Side: false
Only insofar as there is a standard for better and worse health or better and worse eyesight. There is a standard for better and worse behavior, right and wrong. The objectivity of this does not rely on religious notions, but scientific ones, just to keep on topic. Side: false
The problem is that when I asked you, you avoided the question then brought up how morality came about but didn't actually say what you thought the standard was. So I'll ask again, since you have stated that morality is objective, what would you say is the standard? Side: true
"We evolved this trait to help us survive and thrive. Some moral codes are better at this than others, just as some sets of eyes can see better than others. Whose standard do you use to know who has better eyesight?" I haven't avoided even your redundant questions. The standard for morality is the purpose for which it evolved, just like any other human trait. Our brains are too complex for instincts to drive everything. But the world is too complex with too many unknown variables for us to reason the long run outcomes of every choice we make. So there is morality. Principles of conduct that we adhere to even if we never make them explicit in our mind. Some principles of conduct are better at aiding individuals and groups to thrive. Some conduct is detrimental. The standard is whether a given moral code achieves the evolved purpose of morality. The objective truth of this is in the fact that bad moral principles, being less conducive to long run survival and flourishing, would eventually disappear under evolutionary pressure, regardless of what anyone believes about right and wrong. Side: true
"why even be moral if there is no objective reason to believe anyone is holding them to it? Yeah they have other people to hold them to a standard" Other people cannot hold someone to what they do not know the person did. So why do most people often do the right thing when other people are not there to hold them to a standard? Even moral relativists fall into this. Why? Side: false
My question illustrates a different point I was making. People take a moral position and act accordingly, often when no one is looking, even if they are not religious. They will do what they think is good, or stand against some evil, without engaging religious thought whatsoever. Side: false
Some people will kill you because they think it is in the interest of their well-being. But there is a fact to the matter. Will they really actually get 72 virgins? No. Will they enhance their well-being or that of humanity? No. This means that, even though they feel right, they are wrong. But that's a different issue. Why do people often do what's right, with no religious considerations, even when no one is looking? Side: false
Well-being according to nature. Living things seek to survive. Evolution causes the retaining of traits that enable survival. If you survive well, you can be said to thrive. We have a number of traits that help us to know if we are thriving or not. Traits such as happiness, joy, contentment, and a host of other emotional and psychological states, as well as physical conditions. Taken together we call these traits our well-being. Nature determines the conditions of well-being for individuals as well as for groups. Whenever you have a question like this, just think of health, it is a close analogy. Side: false
How do you take anything I've said to mean that Hitler was right? Does murderous behavior lead to prosperity? No Does it enhance the personal well-being of the individuals being murdered? No Were the German people enhanced in anyway by their genocidal leader? Certainly not. How could you imagine that the behavior of Nazis is beneficial? Who would think they acted on right principles? No one gained and everyone lost. Side: false
Doctors focus on the health of their patient. Witch doctors prescribe monkey brain and donkey dung to improve the health of their patient. Is it just their opinion against modern medacine? Just as you couldn't say how Hitler helped anything, you cannot say how the witch doctor helps. That's because neither of them do. Objectively speaking. Side: true
That's absurd. The standard I provided does not vary based on opinion. If you are going to attempt to make a case, you'll have to do better than a baseless assertion. Even if Hitler thought that Germany was better off right before he killed himself, he would be wrong. His opinion, like your current opinion, would be absurd. Side: true
If we compare Mother Theresa to Hitler based off the standard that we need to help societies flourish and help with their well being, there is no defensible position on your part. It is just your opinion that Hitler was wrong and Mother Theresa was right. They were both doing what they thought a society needed to flourish, they both did what they thought was helpful, and they did what they thought they needed to do to contribute to the well being of society. Based off your standard neither of them was wrong and the fact that you agree with what Mother Theresa did and disagree with what Hitler did is just your own opinion against theirs Side: true
They both thought they were helping. Only one of ten actually did. There is no reasonable way to believe that killing a bunch of people and loosing a war will make people better off. You have to ignore reality. Society and individuals are better off or worse off regardless of anyone's opinion, including their own. Side: true
If you both can't be right, then pick a better standard than the flourishing and well being of a society. As good as both of those are and as much as we both want that, you have no basis for what constitutes a flourishing society with a good well being. Just take the example of Hitler and Mother Theresa I gave. It could be said that both contributed to the flourishing and well being of society and it would just be our opinion against theirs Side: true
If you both can't be right, then pick a better standard than the flourishing and well being of a society The fact that two opposing things cannot be right at the same time and in the same respect is a point in favor of my standard. That only means it is logically coherent. It can also be said that 1+1=3, and while that may be your opinion, it is incorrect. If I counter that 1+1=2, the mathematical standard is made stronger by the fact that we cannot both be right If you are going to continue to argue against my point with strictly illogical positions, I will declare my victory and be done with you. Perhaps you'll suggest we are both correct, but you'll be wrong. You can call that "just my opinion". There's no value in yours. Side: true
I read it. You are failing to see that, while opinions differ, two opposite opinions concerning well-being cannot both be correct. Your opinion on the matter is in opposition to logic. I'm annoyed because this is the opinion you started with, that morality is subjective. You asked me a series of questions in the hopes that I would contradict myself. And finally, when you failed to tease out a contradiction, you reverted back to "that's just like..your opinion..man". As though you never read or comprehended anything I have said. It's either dishonest or stupid and either way, I don't have time for it. Side: true
I never took a side. I do agree with you when you say that morality is objective, but I asked questions to understand a your view and saw a problem with what you said. The opinion stuff was the logical conclusion to what you believe. You believe in an objective standard but have no basis for what the standard is. That just makes it your opinion Side: true
How? With no solid basis for a standard for morality, it is just our opinion. With your standard of human flourishing and well being, as good as both of those are, what constitutes human flourishing and well being is extremely subjective. That why I brought up Hitler and Mother Theresa. They were both doing what they thought would be helpful to human flourishing and well being. The problem is that you claim that the standard is objective but then give a standard that in itself needs an objective standard. Essentially what you're doing is letting people redefine the terms Side: true
With no solid basis for a standard for morality I provided the basis earlier. You have either ignored it or failed to understand it. Given the nature of your questions, I should assume the latter. what constitutes human flourishing and well being is extremely subjective This simply isn't true. Your position forces you to claim that your well-being suffers no more by me removing your limbs than if i left them alone. This is illogical. Well-being is no more subjective than health. You can believe that something is healthy, but that does not make it so. They were both doing what they thought would be helpful to human flourishing and well being Which is why I brought up the witch doctor compared to the modern physician. They both do what they think will be helpful to health. The problem is that you claim that the standard is objective but then give a standard that in itself needs an objective standard This also isn't true, so I will ask you to elaborate. What is the objective standard for health? Essentially what you're doing is letting people redefine the terms You have attempted to redefine well-being to include me removing your limbs in order to improve it. Is it your opinion that drinking poison improves health? Side: true
I provided the basis earlier. You have either ignored it or failed to understand it. Given the nature of your questions, I should assume the latter. You provided a basis. Like I said earlier, it wasn't solid. As previously mentioned, your basis could be taken how you mean it which is also how I take it, but it can also be taken how Hitler took it You can believe that something is healthy, but that does not make it so. This concept is what I've been trying to get at. I agree with you when you say that morality is objective, but the problem is that your standard is flawed This also isn't true, It isn't true or it doesn't make sense? What is the objective standard for health? I'm not sure if there is an objective standard, but I would imagine there would be no sickness or pain or aging You have attempted to redefine well-being to include me removing your limbs in order to improve it. I'm not redefining anything. Like I said before, life based on opinions are the logical conclusion of your standard that you provided Is it your opinion that drinking poison improves health? Its not my own personal opinion, but I would imagine someone misconstruing the word healthy to mean that Side: true
You provided a basis. Like I said earlier, it wasn't solid. As previously mentioned, your basis could be taken how you mean it which is also how I take it, but it can also be taken how Hitler took it Yeah. You don't understand the basis I laid out. You seem to believe that misinterpretation is as valid as correct interpretation. This concept is what I've been trying to get at. I agree with you when you say that morality is objective, but the problem is that your standard is flawed Yeah, you keep saying that. But you also keep saying that it was Hitlers opinion that he was right which somehow makes him right. You haven't explained yourself beyond re-asserting your original position. I'm not sure if there is an objective standard, but I would imagine there would be no sickness or pain or aging This may be the root of your confusion. There is a fact to the matter of whether poison is healthy. Opinions do not change this. This is what makes it objective. It's truth is not altered by opinion. There used to be many prescribed medicines that actually harmed your health. The opinion was wrong. Similarly, there are prescribed principles of conduct (Moral prescriptions) that actually harm well-being. If you think people are better off with no limbs, you are actually wrong. So far, your argument has fallen flat. You have to do a few things to make a valid point: -You have to illustrate the flaw in my basis -You have to show that well-being is literally unchanged regardless of me chopping off your limbs -You have to show how having health as a standard for medicine logically concludes with medicine being a matter of opinion. -You may also try showing a significant enough difference between health and well-being to render the analogy invalid. If you don't manage an argument that goes further than absurd and baseless disagreement, such as the options provided above, then I will maintain my victory and really be done with you. Side: true
Yeah. You don't understand the basis I laid out. You seem to believe that misinterpretation is as valid as correct interpretation. Except that with the basis you gave, all you have is different representations that are equally valid. Each opinion is no more valid than another. It doesn't matter if you think that morality is objective if your standard is flawed Yeah, you keep saying that. But you also keep saying that it was Hitlers opinion that he was right which somehow makes him right. You haven't explained yourself beyond re-asserting your original position. Here's what I've said. If I need more let me know. You say morality is objective and the standard is human flourishing and well being. This standard is arbitrary as Hitler said that he was assisting in human flourishing and well being. My intent was to show, as I said earlier, how arbitrary the standard of human flourishing and well being is with the Hitler example. Unless you have a solid unmoving standard, thenits just my opinion against yours. As good of a desire as human flourishing and well being are, the concepts are too arbitrary to have as a standard So far, your argument has fallen flat. You have to do a few things to make a valid point: -You have to illustrate the flaw in my basis As I said earlier, the basis is too arbitrary to have as a standard. As much as we want people to flourish and have a good well being, that means something different in the mind of a dictator and unless we have an objective standard of what healthy is, all we have is people opinion -You have to show that well-being is literally unchanged regardless of me chopping off your limbs Well being according to who -You have to show how having health as a standard for medicine logically concludes with medicine being a matter of opinion. Thats not what I said. Health itself cannot be a standard. Its just a concept that can be redefined by anyone as they please. You would have to prove what is healthy and show that it can be used as a non arbitrary standard -You may also try showing a significant enough difference between health and well-being to render the analogy invalid. As with health, well being is too arbitrary a concept to use it as a standard since it can be redefined so easily Side: true
If you scroll up you will find where I derive terms such as flourish, thrive, and well-being. These are all devolopments of survival. After basic survival, we have begun to survive well. This is not arbitrary. Asking a question "according to who" does not remove objectivity from the situation. When I say that 1 and 1 is 2, you asking "according to who?", does not make it a matter of opinion, even if your opinion is different. Nor is the concept of health arbitrary, it is imprecise. This seems to be your real issue with well-being. It is not the case that any given chemical is as healthy as any other. Nor is it the case that Hitler actual made society better off. Not by any measure. Opinions vary, but reality persists. There's no such thing as perfect vision, but there is good and bad vision. There's no such thing as perfect health, but there is strong and weak health. There's no such thing as perfect morality, but there is right and wrong morality. The lack of precision does not imply a lack of objectivity, nor a lack of standard. Side: false
Human health, flourishing, and well being are established concepts. However, unless you have an unchanging standard for each, thats all they are is concepts that can be redefined by anyone. And they would use their own line of reasoning as an objective standard just like what you've been trying to do to convince me that the concepts of human health, flourishing, and well being in and of themselves are somehow unchanging standards. While you have your own idea of human health, flourishing, and well being, it sounds like you've been using that as the standard for what is considered beneficial to human health, flourishing, and well being. I agree with you when you say that lack of precision doesn't imply a lack of objectivity or a standard, but how does that help your case when you use imprecise terms as a standard? You talk about these things being imprecise which implies that there is a precise measurement for these things. What would you say it is? Side: true
thats all they are is concepts That's all any principle is. While the name for a principle may change, the principle itself remains. And they would use their own line of reasoning as an objective standard just like what you've been trying to do to convince me that the concepts of human health, flourishing, and well being in and of themselves are somehow unchanging standards We live in a changing world. Standards of health have certainly changed, but the principle is consistent. Things that are not recommended because they cause cancer in old age, didn't matter when no one lived to old age. If another analogy isn't too much, a house is meant to keep out the weather, but it looks very different in Alaska than in the Sahara. but how does that help your case when you use imprecise terms as a standard? Look how far it has brought the medical field, and with signs of slowing down. You talk about these things being imprecise which implies that there is a precise measurement No. That doesn't follow. Side: false
That's all any principle is. While the name for a principle may change, the principle itself remains. Even an unchanging standard for human health, flourishing, and well being? We live in a changing world. Standards of health have certainly changed, but the principle is consistent. Things that are not recommended because they cause cancer in old age, didn't matter when no one lived to old age. If another analogy isn't too much, a house is meant to keep out the weather, but it looks very different in Alaska than in the Sahara. There is still an unchanging understanding that certain things cause cancer in old age and you need a house to keep out the weather No. That doesn't follow. Show me that it doesn't follow and I will believe you Side: true
Health is the standard for medicine. Well-being is the standard for morality. You talk about these things being imprecise which implies that there is a precise measurement This does not follow. Quantum physics is so imprecise that we must envision electron clouds wherein the precise location of the electron doesn't exist, but rather the electron is at any given location within the cloud. The imprecise nature of the quantum universe need not imply a further, underlying precise nature. With something such as health, it doesn't matter if there is a precise measure for how healthy a thing is, because we can't know it anyway. We aren't that advanced. What matters is that we can know that some things are healthy, others are not, and we can know the difference. As we advance in the field, imprecision is diminished. Now consider that we have accepted the objective nature of health and devoted scientific study to it for hundreds of years while we have left the moral field to mystics. If health is imprecise, morality is likely more so. Side: false
Science is merely refined philosophy. Where is the justice molecule? What scientific experiment do you run for honesty? Besides, you asked me to show you how it could be precision does not necessarily follow from imprecision. Modern science sufficiently illustrates that point. I never said imprecision follows from precision. Even in quantum physics, for the scientists to say that an event is imprecise, they are assuming that there is an event that is precise for them to compare this event to Side: true
Even in quantum physics, for the scientists to say that an event is imprecise, they are assuming that there is an event that is precise for them to compare this event to There are example of imprecision implying precision, but it is not necessarily the case. As in the example I provided. Nor do I think it is the case in the topic at hand. But then, even if there was a precise measure of health, again, it wouldn't matter because we are not yet in a position to know it. That does not remove our ability from knowing health imprecisely Where is the justice molecule? What scientific experiment do you run for honesty? For justice I'll refer you to Political Science. It's not physics so there's no molecule. But it's science rather than philosophy. For experiments on honesty I would direct you to psychology and behavioral economics. Professor Dan Ariely for example. Side: false
But then, even if there was a precise measure of health, again, it wouldn't matter because we are not yet in a position to know it. If there is no precise measure of health, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the medical field? For justice I'll refer you to Political Science. It's not physics so there's no molecule. But it's science rather than philosophy. For experiments on honesty I would direct you to psychology and behavioral economics. Professor Dan Ariely for example. We may use these to know justice and honesty, aren't these assuming that there is an objective standard for each of these? Side: true
If there is no precise measure of health, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the medical field? No. We may use these to know justice and honesty, aren't these assuming that there is an objective standard for each of these? Justice is a moral concept put to practice in political science. Judges employ different philosophical standards of justice depending on the context of the given case to attempt to come to the right, most just decision. So yes, there is an attempt at objective moral correctness. It is objective but imprecise. And it can be objectively wrong, even if no one knows it. Honesty is simply conveying what you believe is true information. That's the standard. Side: false
No. If there is no standard of what is considered healthy, how does anyone in the medical field know that they are helping anyone? Justice is a moral concept put to practice in political science. ... Honesty is simply conveying what you believe is true information. If there is no standard for what is considered just or honest, who decides who is more just or honest? Side: true
Health is relative to known variables. Not all variables can be known. So what we used to call healthy is no longer considered healthy. Because we know more relevant variables now. So we measure health on a comparative scale, with no knowledge of absolute health. We can also measure distance even though we know of no absolute distance. But who decides if the doctors diagnosis of health is correct? Reality does. Who decides if justice is actually served? Well, is there a higher balance of well-being? Is future well-being more assured by a given decision? No person can say for sure ("who" is the wrong question anyway), but there is a fact to the matter. Side: true
You keep asking questions as though you haven't read what I have already posted. The justice system aims to bring justice. While we cannot say that a given judge has brought absolute justice, we can say that having no justice system will bring less justice. Why do we have a medical practice? To provide health improving medicine. We cannot say how much a given medicine improves your health, but having no medical practice will be far less beneficial to your health. Side: false
Current situations compared to previous situation. Tell me, does the fact that the US uses feet, but the EU uses meters, mean that whether a thing is longer than another thing is subjective? If I say a meter is longer than an inch, how can I know? Is there an absolute distance distance to derive other distances from? Side: false
You haven't illustrated a flaw in my position, but rather in your understanding thereof. Given you don't even understand the difference between an analogy and a moral equivalence, I'm not too concerned about the accuracy of your critique of what you believe is my position. Your refusal to answer analogous questions indicates a willful ignorance rather than honest confusion, as the answers may serve to clarify things for you. Something you don't seemed to be interested in. Side: false
Quote it. I said that distance is not a moral issue. I was not referring to a principle of right or wrong when I analogized distance. Had you answered the question, the relevant principle at issue would have become clear. Now you have incorrectly argued that my position lends to total subjectivity after I thoroughly explained the objectivity thereof, and you have claimed false equivelance where there is accurate analogy. I am growing tired of repeating myself only to have you ignore what I have said. Side: true
In order for you to prove your position, you would have to show how you would actually be better off having no hands and feet, while simoultaniously being better off having hands and feet. You see, pretending subjectivity has primacy over objective reality leads to contradictions. Your opinion is logically impossible. My opinion is logically coherent. Side: true
1
point
1
point
You have to take God out of the equation if you want to reach people outside of your belief system. Not all reasonable people are Christian, so you can't convince them with a Christian argument. The same applies to any given ideology. You cannot convince reasonable people of a different ideology if you invoke your own idiology. However, all reasonable people, regardless of religion or ideology, can be convinced with reason. Side: false
1
point
I'm not here for conversions. I'm simply logical enough to see atheism is uncalculated and mindless. Logicaly, it's like choosing a kick in the nuts over a high grade steak dinner andd then calling the steak eaters idots while you roll around on the floor in agony. Side: true
I'm not here for conversions Are you here for debates? Are you here to win arguments? If you are here to converse, debate, or convince, appealing to the authority of your own faith won't get you very far. I might appeal to the authority of my faith and we would both be equally indisputable. And equally unconvincing. Your arguments have to rest on the authority of reason. Otherwise they are as useful to discourse as Sharia Law. Side: false
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You're assuming that everybody follows a single ideology, which is completely untrue! You realize that Germans during the Nazi regime weren't all genocidal anti-Semitics. A minority simply manipulated decent people to get into power. Not everybody followed the Nazi ideology, ergo your premise is inherently flawed. Side: false
1
point
Not really. People who didn't particularly like Nazism still threw people in furnaces alive, marched across Europe, and marched into Russia with swastika patches on their arms. Are you saying that if the Grand Mufti told all Muslims to march on Israel only ISIS would show? Keep that living that dream... Side: true
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Mankind has been capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil since the emergence of the human race. The laws of most nations, and indeed those of isolated tribes who have never heard of any of our man made Gods, are based on common human decency and administered in a manner compatible with the society to which they apply. In many ways some of the main religions of the world, such as Islam is altogether evil as we regularly see the results of the teachings of this barbaric religious doctrine and it's practice of female genital mutilation and the stoning to death of adultresses. Many followers of this eastern religion which refuses to emerge into the modern world, interpret it's scriptures in a way which incites them to slaughter all 'infidels'', non believers. Side: false
2
points
So you're saying that morality is subjective? I would agree with you that without objective morality we would all be monstrous if things like the Stanford prison experiment and Stanley milgram experiment as well as a couple others that I can't remember the names of didn't happen Side: true
1
point
|
