Ok so I've got a couple of things here -
firstly, I used to treat believers rather poorly, and used a lot of personal attacks on them mostly because of the stereotypes I've held against them. However after discussing more and more with this guy I have found him to be respectful, honest, and intelligent and so I'm not a real big fan at this point of just totally trashing believers down as ridiculous ignorant jerks of somekind.
Also the fact is that while we might not be convinced of their god at this point I at least am willing to admit the results aren't in just yet and that you know what we still don't know what banged the big bang, how non-life became life and how unconscious matter became not just conscious but self conscious. So I just don't know about holding them all out to be ignorant morons.
Then as far as what we've been discussing so far I guess I had better ask a few questions to get some clarifications so I understand what you guys are saying more before I respond.
It seems like I have gotten a lot of different responses regarding objective morality but no one has really answered the question head on yet. I'm asking that if we aren't admitting an absolute objective morality then would you say it is wrong to kill and innocent person. Its a yes or no question, and its aside from the abortion scenario, just plain and simple is it wrong to kill and innocent person, if someone today were to kill your closest loved one for no reason would you say that that was wrong? Yes or no?
Part of my confusion seems to come from the fact that absolute objective morals really can't be grounded in an atheistic belief system which for me is where I am finding my difficulties. Since I have posted on here I have heard people criticize my co-worker and his church for several different things as if they were actually objectively wrong things that they are doing. Yet when I ask about objective morality we say more or less no, objectivly morality doesn't exist it's all just cultural relativism, so there seems to be a dis-congruity between what we are professing and how we are acting. Let me know what you think.
Lastly for the abortion argument he put things (for starters there is more) to me this way, "can you prove to me that the fetus isn't a person?" I gave certain objections but nothing that would in any way prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt, but more just personal standards or opinions of personhood. Then he said "if we can't prove for certain that it isn't a person, wouldn't the obvious thing to do would be to wait to find out before we kill it? For example if you were driving and saw a trenchcoat on the road and you weren't sure if it was a person or just a coat would you run it over or would you go around it? Or if you were hunting and you saw something move in the bushes and you weren't sure if it was your hunting partner or an animal would you shoot first and ask questions later?" And so more or less he made a fairly reasonable point that if there is debate or uncertainty shouldn't we wait before we kill?
He had further objections to other justifications for abortion but this was at least his starting point.
So the question is "how do we define a person?"
Sorry I know this was a long post, but ultimately I am mostly hoping for the Yes or No answer to the question do you think it is ok to kill and innocent person, and for some definitions of what a person is. Thanks guys
firstly, I used to treat believers rather poorly, and used a lot of personal attacks on them mostly because of the stereotypes I've held against them. However after discussing more and more with this guy I have found him to be respectful, honest, and intelligent and so I'm not a real big fan at this point of just totally trashing believers down as ridiculous ignorant jerks of somekind.
Also the fact is that while we might not be convinced of their god at this point I at least am willing to admit the results aren't in just yet and that you know what we still don't know what banged the big bang, how non-life became life and how unconscious matter became not just conscious but self conscious. So I just don't know about holding them all out to be ignorant morons.
Then as far as what we've been discussing so far I guess I had better ask a few questions to get some clarifications so I understand what you guys are saying more before I respond.
It seems like I have gotten a lot of different responses regarding objective morality but no one has really answered the question head on yet. I'm asking that if we aren't admitting an absolute objective morality then would you say it is wrong to kill and innocent person. Its a yes or no question, and its aside from the abortion scenario, just plain and simple is it wrong to kill and innocent person, if someone today were to kill your closest loved one for no reason would you say that that was wrong? Yes or no?
Part of my confusion seems to come from the fact that absolute objective morals really can't be grounded in an atheistic belief system which for me is where I am finding my difficulties. Since I have posted on here I have heard people criticize my co-worker and his church for several different things as if they were actually objectively wrong things that they are doing. Yet when I ask about objective morality we say more or less no, objectivly morality doesn't exist it's all just cultural relativism, so there seems to be a dis-congruity between what we are professing and how we are acting. Let me know what you think.
Lastly for the abortion argument he put things (for starters there is more) to me this way, "can you prove to me that the fetus isn't a person?" I gave certain objections but nothing that would in any way prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt, but more just personal standards or opinions of personhood. Then he said "if we can't prove for certain that it isn't a person, wouldn't the obvious thing to do would be to wait to find out before we kill it? For example if you were driving and saw a trenchcoat on the road and you weren't sure if it was a person or just a coat would you run it over or would you go around it? Or if you were hunting and you saw something move in the bushes and you weren't sure if it was your hunting partner or an animal would you shoot first and ask questions later?" And so more or less he made a fairly reasonable point that if there is debate or uncertainty shouldn't we wait before we kill?
He had further objections to other justifications for abortion but this was at least his starting point.
So the question is "how do we define a person?"
Sorry I know this was a long post, but ultimately I am mostly hoping for the Yes or No answer to the question do you think it is ok to kill and innocent person, and for some definitions of what a person is. Thanks guys
