(September 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm)Epimethean Wrote: That would be subjective until further rapists grew up to muddy the waters.

Well that's the point isn't it, that all morality is subjective? I have yet to see ONE moral behavior to be an example of a so-called "objective" morality.

StatCrux I believe is one of those persons who without their imaginary police officer (Yahweh this in case). If they could get away with it, they would kill and rape among other such acts.

One of the unfortunate aspects of religion it oftens keep people from developing into responsible adults. I link to this blog post which quotes Robert M Price from The Reason Driven Life about this.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/04/...mmaturity/

I gotta say it does seem like a LOT of this discussion was people showing the invalidity of theistic morality instead of answering the question...Why do so many people bring God in that discussion ? It seemed suspicious.

He has a point though right ? There is no objective moral truth, or higher moral authority, as such no one can tell anyone else that something is "wrong" or not, isn't that true ?

The evolutionary explanation explains where our morals come from, and what is best for the species as a whole. However, this is in no way binding or expressly agreed upon...If respecting morals is just to avoid going against the group's morality to keep being accepted in the group, doesn't that mean that being "good" depends only what the group considers "good", which in turns means that "good" or "bad" are concepts that are what the majority believes they are, showing that morality is in itself an argumentam ad populum and as such the basic idea of "morality" is a logical fallacy ?

(September 12, 2011 at 7:00 am)Rwandrall Wrote: If respecting morals is just to avoid going against the group's morality to keep being accepted in the group, doesn't that mean that being "good" depends only what the group considers "good", which in turns means that "good" or "bad" are concepts that are what the majority believes they are, showing that morality is in itself an argumentam ad populum and as such the basic idea of "morality" is a logical fallacy ?

Yes, indeed, a concensus plays a vital role in deciding what is good and what is morally right, after all, morality has to do with a code of behavior, and who else is better than society to decide on that code? However, you must take into consideration that as society acquires new knowledge and new understanding about nature, ourselves, etc. new attitudes will develop and morality will change accordingly. Case in point, homosexuality. It was believed that it was an abomination, against God's will, against nature, etc. Today, we understand that one doesn't choose his/her sexual orientation -- it is decided at conception, and hence attitudes have changed that more and more people are willing to give gays the same rights as any other citizens.

(September 12, 2011 at 6:55 am)Justtristo Wrote: StatCrux I believe is one of those persons who without their imaginary police officer (Yahweh this in case). If they could get away with it, they would kill and rape among other such acts.

I wait in dizzied anticipation for the report that this will no doubt generate

(September 12, 2011 at 7:50 am)Darwinian Wrote:

(September 12, 2011 at 6:55 am)Justtristo Wrote: StatCrux I believe is one of those persons who without their imaginary police officer (Yahweh this in case). If they could get away with it, they would kill and rape among other such acts.

I wait in dizzied anticipation for the report that this will no doubt generate

StatCrux asked for it when he/she started this thread.

(September 12, 2011 at 4:14 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(September 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm)Epimethean Wrote: That would be subjective until further rapists grew up to muddy the waters.

Well that's the point isn't it, that all morality is subjective? I have yet to see ONE moral behavior to be an example of a so-called "objective" morality.

I agree, and I was agreeing there.

(September 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm)aleialoura Wrote: What about the golden rule? It's been used throughout history in nearly every culture, and it's common fucking sense.

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that. I am sorry if someone already said that. I was going to read this whole thread, but my brain hurts today.

He probably thinks that was a Christian invention.

(September 12, 2011 at 9:56 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(September 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm)aleialoura Wrote: What about the golden rule? It's been used throughout history in nearly every culture, and it's common fucking sense.

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that. I am sorry if someone already said that. I was going to read this whole thread, but my brain hurts today.

He probably thinks that was a Christian invention.

...or stolen from them by Satan, and planted earlier to make Christians look like plagiarists.

(September 11, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Shell B Wrote: Dammit, Stat. Are you going to get caught up on this "sociopath" thing and ignore everything else I said to you? Stick to the topic and start another thread about sociopaths, if you must discuss it.

It's so cute when they ignore replies that they can't answer, isn't it?