What's right and wrong?

[kedaman]

their correctness stems from autonomy.

[Foxer]

Originally posted by kedaman
Moral codes are universal, they dictate what one is obligated to do, not what is acceptable in a certain region.

I wonder if morals are different to socially acceptable behaviour?

Societies are different between the continents, but are the underlying morals the same?

Do Asians, Africans, Europeans etc share the same morals despite having different tolerances on certain activities?

I'm making the premise that acceptable behaviour is defined/dependant on morals. I may be wrong.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

You can prove or disprove anything easier the more vague the point is. Sticking to factual representation will make the debate have a foundation which can bring about thoughtful retorts.

If you have something to say, say it as best as you can.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by kedaman
their correctness stems from autonomy.

Its autonomy doesn't imply correctness.

[Wally Pipp]

Ked still seems to think that there's a "moral blueprint" on another level which can only be ignored at one's own peril (i.e. we'll die if we do so) and that we'd be better off if we followed it ...

I think that morals are relative and dependant on time frame, societal organisation, prevailing culture and knowledge.

I fail to see the relevance on a blueprint that can be ignored or interpreted at will most of the time. It's a bit like a book : it lies there on the table but what relevance has the text in it if no-one ever bothers to read it ?

[kedaman]

You can prove or disprove anything easier the more vague the point is. Sticking to factual representation will make the debate have a foundation which can bring about thoughtful retorts.

If you have something to say, say it as best as you can.

Then I will show you why you moral relativists have no foundation by using my "you have no idea what you are talking about" argument.

I've been in a debate earlier of whether true randomness actually exists. I asserted randomness was meant something you did not know, while my opponent asserted randomness was something you could not know. So I asked how could you possibly be sure of whether a series of random numbers didn't have an underlying pattern? My opponent was faced with the problem with not having a clear cut definition so inspite given a series of numbers, he could not decide whether it was random or not. I knew it was not because I had generated them. The problem still remained, you cannot prove a negative.

There was an easy way out of this though which I never considered: It might have been random to my opponent but to me it was not, but if it was impossible for my opponent to know, then it would fit his definition for that it is random, but it would not be random for everyone because i knew from what pattern they stemmed. Hence it's possible to define randomness in this way for the sake of methodology as it is done in quantum mechanics. Whether its a fact or not has no relevance. Since quantum mechanics is not a GUT it could be replaced with something better any time.

Your position is different though, because you have no definition of what is moral. You say it depends on cultural circumstances, but it still remains vague as to exactly how it depends on them. If one feels obligated to do something, does not mean that they should do it. For instance if i've been taught that cows are holy, it does not imply that i should not eat them, i feel obligation not to do so but not necessarily that I shouldn't. Morals define what you should or should not do, if that feeling is moral to you, then what is moral quickly becomes determined by the authorities as in medival times. Exterminate all witches, they are evil, that was considered a moral conduct, because people felt obligated to do so, but this was only because the church authorities had this imposed on them. If you argue that this is what you should do, act in such a way that authorities have taught you, then you must realise that this actually means accepting the bandwagon fallacy, with which you could justify anything, social darwinism, genocide, holy war whatever you want.

Instead reconsider your position, because in this position you are acting out of heteronomy - an outside control over the state of being of an object or individual. In contrast autonomy is self legislation, that is in which no external factors have a say, but is purely determined by reason, and should hence of necessity determine universal moral code, the practical necessity.

[kedaman]

Wally: ask yourself, how can an act be moral or immoral, if you don't have a choice? That you don't have to read the book is the point, if it is forced on you then you are not making a moral decision.

[Wally Pipp]

ah no, the point is that without anyone reading it there's no point in a book. Which is what you constantly tell us : even if no-one follows the morals they are still there.
But that's not it, is it ? If no-one follows the morals then what's the point of having them or them being there ?
What is the point of having a rule if no-one follows it ?

[kedaman]

none. They are not supposed to be used to justify something else, because that in itself is already immoral. Anything beyond morals are indifferent and pointless by definition.

[aewarnick]

digitalerror, you said, "Asserting truth with no factual basis is foolish and makes you laughable"

I agree 9999%! I can see that by your signature you don't believe that God even exists. I urge you to do studies on proof that there is a creator god. You will find an emmense amount of evidence. For example, the human eye.

Once you are sure of God's existance you must find out which god is God! Finding this out is a matter of prayer and research.

Jesus did miracles all throughout his ministry on Earth. Then rose from the dead himself! The apostles all scattered in fear when Jesus was captured. But after a few days they were willing to face death for preaching that Jesus was alive!

The apostles did all the kinds of miracles Jesus did and so do Christians now days. If you look you will see. There have been many many many accounts of all kinds of diseases being healed and even raising of the dead through Christianity. And take a look at how many biblical prophesies have been fulfilled. One of them being the return of the Jews to their homeland in 1946 (I think that is the right date).

By the way, I don't just believe what people tell me, God has used me to do some miracles. So if you think I believe without proof you are wrong.

[kedaman]

I disagree with you both. You may laugh all you want, it wont make something true false or vice versa. You may use evidence in favour for each position but in the end you will prove nothing.
You stand emptyhanded and powerless before God and only faith can determine your fate.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

So you're telling me it's more probable that a divine, perfect, omnipotent, and omniscience being was somehow created(then did her thing), or a universe of chaos spawns a chaotic life, filled with as many problems as there are stars in the sky?

We are not perfect by inheritance. Souls are intangibles, you're talking about what you can't know. Your theologian beliefs of divinity are based purely on ignorance.

Make your heaven here and now, if you must. You'll atleast, admittedly, be more certain to obtain it. But that will only come about when there's true acceptance and appreciation for all things naturally secular.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by kedaman
I disagree with you both. You may laugh all you want, it wont make something true false or vice versa. You may use evidence in favour for each position but in the end you will prove nothing.
You stand emptyhanded and powerless before God and only faith can determine your fate.

I'm glad someone has faith in me.

[Shawn N]

I punched a kid in the face, when I was 5, for taking my toy. I wouldn't do that now.

[yrwyddfa]

Someone prove to me that God doesn't exist.

Please.

or shut the f**K up

[Wally Pipp]

that's a logical fallacy :

Demanding proof that something doesn't exist does not ipso facto mean that in absence of a decent argument it does exist.

[yrwyddfa]

. . and vice versa.

Unusually, someone gets the point.

[Wally Pipp]

Maybe but I prefer not to believe in these things until proven otherwise

[yrwyddfa]

A strange stance implying that you believe in nothing until it is proven.

Which ultimately means you will never believe in anything; certainty does not exist

This is a very comfortable position to be in, as you can now argue that it is valid not to be concerned with anything until it is proven.

'Ostrich head sand in has' comes to mind . . .

[Wally Pipp]

I think the key is in ""

[yrwyddfa]

[Wally Pipp]

What ? You're the one making all the extrapolations.

[davebat]

Here is proof that God doesnt exist.

http://www.lord-god.com/

[yrwyddfa]

he he he

[Wally Pipp]

your member title couldn't be more appropriate at this time

[yrwyddfa]

I am not a member I am a free man

(followed by strange and exotic bubbles)

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by aewarnick
By the way, I don't just believe what people tell me, God has used me to do some miracles. So if you think I believe without proof you are wrong.

I think you belong in an insane asylum.

[yrwyddfa]

dIG . . .

Why do you not believe in God?

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Someone prove to me that God doesn't exist.

Please.

or shut the f**K up

Well, perhaps Ockham's Razor explains it reasonably. A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

[yrwyddfa]

I am well aware of Occams razor, and the principles on which it enshrines.

I am also aware of Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle, the Myocin ratchet, adenosine triphosphate, and the peculiar properties of the water tetrahedron.

Your point being?

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
dIG . . .

Why do you not believe in God?

There's no reason for such a creature to exist, nor do I or have I seen proof of such a beings existence. The Bible is bull****, filled with contradiction and obvious human fallacy(because it was written solely by men devoid of divine inspiration).

And that question, as you posed it, makes me laugh. There are no gods. The word god should never truly be capitalized. A better way to ask would be: why do you not believe in a god?

What makes your god better than the thousands of other gods out there?

For all intents and purposes, I'm a god.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god

See def. # 5.

[yrwyddfa]

Let's have a look at this shall we?

Occams razor (as you mentioned it) We need two theories:
(i) Life was created by God
(ii) Life ?

There is no second one, so how can Occams razor apply? What is your simpler theory? You're going to need to help me out here.

There's no reason for such a creature to exist,

Says who? You? He he he he

nor do I or have I seen proof of such a beings existence.

Have you seen mitochondria folding around itself to transport oxygen around your bloodstream? No. Nor have I; but I don't doubt it's existence.

The Bible is bull****, filled with contradiction

What contradictions are you referrring too? How do you know it's bull****? Is this a gut feeling, or do you have proof?

And that question, as you posed it, makes me laugh. There are no gods. The word god should never truly be capitalized. A better way to ask would be: why do you not believe in a god?

Firstly I'm pleased you found a modicom of amusement. I can assure you, you amuse me too. Grammar and semantics, however fun to play with, really are irrelevant here, don't you think? Maybe we can argue about my existence dependent on whether my name should be capitalised or not? he he he he he he he (chuckle chuckle)

Perhaps you would like to provide some alternative to the existence of (a) God?

[yrwyddfa]

Is your IQ above 90?

Just asking

[MartinLiss]

This thread is getting a bit nasty and I'm tempted to close it. BTW I have the ultimate answer to the question of what's right and wrong - I am right and you are wrong

[Wally Pipp]

well then, prove god :

(and don't chuck Bible quotes at me, real quantifiable and logical proof)

Let's see how you'll fare then ...

[MartinLiss]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
well then, prove god :

(and don't chuck Bible quotes at me, real quantifiable and logical proof)

Let's see how you'll fare then ...

People who believe in God will literally quote chapter and verse from the bible to prove their point. People who don't believe in God will say that that is circular reasoning. Few people will be swayed by what either side of the issue considers logical arguments.

[Wally Pipp]

you are absolutely right. Let's see if that point can be refuted

[Shawn N]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
that's a logical fallacy :

Demanding proof that something doesn't exist does not ipso facto mean that in absence of a decent argument it does exist.

WMDs?

Absensce of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Millions upon billions of years ago the Earth was a molten form, it was a fairly heterogeneous mixture of elements mainly consisting of iron and smaller elements(once iron starts forming from the nuclear reactions of a sun it's close to death, super novas, and new planets/stars are formed in it's wake).

Anyway, back to our molten Earth. A large comet came along, smashing into our planet. The resulting forces caused the iron from both the comet and the Earth to become magnetized, attrract one another, and with the help of gravity this large mass of iron became the center of the Earth. The rest of the comet became the Moon(which explains why it's devoid of iron).

Furthermore, the Moon has kept our Earth in it's balance. Without it the Earth would spin wildly, making the seasons change rapidly and irratically, life probably wouldn't have become what it is today, if it did at all.

"In 1952, Stanley Miller, the father of prebiotic chemistry, conducted an experiment that simulated conditions on Earth before life arose. He simulated his version of a primordial Earth by creating a network of glass flasks and tubing. One flask held an electric toothbrush that generates 100,000 volts. In the same flask as the electric toothbrush, Miller placed methane, hydrogen and ammonia to represent the alleged atmosphere. In a lower flask, a little pool of water represented the oceans of ancient Earth. When the electric toothbrush let out its volts, the result was a rich broth of amino acids, used by all known creatures as the building blocks for proteins. From this experiment, Miller deduced that life could be created with an ocean, an atmosphere and some lightening."

I'll leave any further research to you.

[aewarnick]

You believe the most foolish thing out there - Evolution! There is so much evidence against evolution that it is staggering! Look up Kent Hovand (not sure it I spelled his last name correctly).