|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
Not at all. Some may think that it's OK to kill (capital punishment), others may not. 150 years ago it was considered "moral" to have slaves and not let women vote, today it's not. As I said, morality is relative.
What *I* may think about right or wrong is not the question, the question is morality. You are confusing a specific person's values and morals with morality. My morals may say that it's wrong to speed, another person's morals may say it's OK. AGG, you must realize this makes no sense and you are contradicting yourself. It is you who are confused when you say I am "confusing a specific persons .....morals with moraltity." huh?  That is nonsensical. You cannot assert that it is wrong to kill and rob and then say that each person is entitled to his own set of morals. That makes no sense, and I know you don't really believe that. Morals are either relative or they are absolute, not both. And I can prove you do not believe that every person is entitled to his own set of morals. If you discovered all the money missing from your bank account, would it be acceptable for your banker to say that he stole your money because according to HIS OWN MORALITY, stealing is acceptable? Somehow I don't think you would believe it is acceptable for your banker to practice his own brand of "private morals" with your money. I suspect that you fully expect others to treat you with MORAL ABSOLUTES. Secondly, if you assert that society determines morality, then are you condoning the ownership of SLAVES worldwide in the past? Slave ownership was legal, moral and acceptable in bygone days as determined by society at large. Were Germans also validated in killing Jews in WW11 because they believed it was the moral thing to do? You have proven my point. Morality is relative. All those things were considered moral. Now they are not. AGG [/quote] But the only way I can have proven your point is if you agree that it was "MORAL" to hold slaves and kill Jews. Are you making this assertion? AGG, you have not really thought this through, that much is clear.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
Absolutely it is a faith. It is a BLIND FAITH in the belief that there is no god. OK, if you want to perverse the English language this way, I'll grant you that lack of a belief in something could be "faith". The reality is that atheism is " absence of belief in deity". AGG No, it is not me who is perversing the English language, but YOU: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. Atheism takes a great deal of FAITH. BLIND FAITH.
Last edited by MelodyLane; 10/15/08 12:23 PM.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
You cannot assert that it is wrong to kill and rob and then say that each person is entitled to his own set of morals. I see. So whose "morals" must I adopt? Yours? Mine? Osama's? Who will pick which morals we must all adopt, since we are not entitled to have our own morals? Morals are either relative or they are absolute, not both. I didn't say morals are relative, I said morality is relative. Although the reality is that most people have relativity in their morals too. Is it right to speed? Is it right to exaggerate your tax deductions? And I can prove you do not believe that every person is entitled to his own set of morals. If you discovered all the money missing from your bank account, would it be acceptable for your banker to say that he stole your money because according to HIS OWN MORALITY, stealing is acceptable? That's a pretty lame example. Regardless of what the banker thought, it would be illegal. A more correct example would be one that broke no laws (since you constantly are confusing morality with legality) - what if you found a wallet with $10K in it? Is it stealing to take it? Should you return it? Most would say yes. What if it's $1000? $100? $10? $1? This will depend on the individual and his morals. Some would say that keeping even the $1 is stealing, but I would like to see anyone making the effort to return the $1 to the rightful owner. This is what I mean by relative. But the only way I can have proven your point is if you agree that it was "MORAL" to hold slaves and kill Jews. Are you making this assertion? No, that is not what was said. What you said, and I agreed, is that what might have been moral at one point (owning slaves) is not moral now. Your words, proving that morality is relative. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Absolutely it is a faith. It is a BLIND FAITH in the belief that there is no god. OK, if you want to perverse the English language this way, I'll grant you that lack of a belief in something could be "faith". The reality is that atheism is " absence of belief in deity". AGG No, it is not me who is perversing the English language, but YOU: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. Atheism takes a great deal of FAITH. BLIND FAITH. Thanks for the English lesson, but again, atheism is based on LACK of belief in deity, so your association of belief with faith is pointless. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
Thanks for the English lesson, but again, atheism is based on LACK of belief in deity, so your association of belief with faith is pointless.
AGG Read again carefully, AGG, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD. That is FAITH: 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
That's a pretty lame example. Regardless of what the banker thought, it would be illegal. A more correct example would be one that broke no laws (since you constantly are confusing morality with legality) - what if you found a wallet with $10K in it? Is it stealing to take it? Should you return it? Most would say yes. What if it's $1000? $100? $10? $1? This will depend on the individual and his morals. Some would say that keeping even the $1 is stealing, but I would like to see anyone making the effort to return the $1 to the rightful owner. This is what I mean by relative. huh? You side stepped this question, AGG. If we are all entitled to our own morality, as you assert, then by what standard could you then demand moral absolutes from your BANKER? You can't use the legality of the act as a standard, because if morals are relative, then we all get to pick and choose the laws we abide by. We are all entitled to pick and choose using your "standard." No, that is not what was said. What you said, and I agreed, is that what might have been moral at one point (owning slaves) is not moral now. Your words, proving that morality is relative.] Nowhere have I said that slavery and killing Jews is moral. Nowhere. Those societies considered it moral. So you are agreeing that killing JEWS and owning slaves WAS MORAL? Do you therefore, think that a miscarriage of justice was done to the Germans we hung after the War Crimes tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany after WW11? Do you also feel like President Abraham Lincoln was being IMMORAL for conducting the Civil War for the abolition of slavery?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
[I see. So whose "morals" must I adopt? Yours? Mine? Osama's? Who will pick which morals we must all adopt, since we are not entitled to have our own morals? AGG, I am asking you to really think about this honestly. If we are all entitled to our own morals, then on what grounds could you possibly object to your banker stealing the money from your account?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Thanks for the English lesson, but again, atheism is based on LACK of belief in deity, so your association of belief with faith is pointless.
AGG Read again carefully, AGG, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD. That is FAITH: 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. A font war will not prove your point, Mel. Atheism is lack of belief in God, not a belief in lack of god. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
huh? You side stepped this question, AGG. If we are all entitled to our own morality, as you assert, then by what standard could you then demand moral absolutes from your BANKER? I don't demand moral absoluteness from my banker, as you apparently do. I demand from my banker the adherence to laws; if I had to expect morality from my banker, I'd be in deep doo doo. You can't use the legality of the act as a standard, because if morals are relative, then we all get to pick and choose the laws we abide by. We do get to pick which laws we abide by. And if we pick wrongly, we end up in jail. Has nothing to do with morality. We are all entitled to pick and choose using your "standard." So, you sidestepped my question - whose morals must we all adopt, since we can't choose our own? Yours? Mine? Can you answer this? Nowhere have I said that slavery and killing Jews is moral. Nowhere. Those societies considered it moral. So you are agreeing that killing JEWS and owning slaves WAS MORAL? We are saying the same thing, Mel. Owning slaves was considered moral by the society. Now it's not. Morality changed. My point precisely. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
If we are all entitled to our own morals, then on what grounds could you possibly object to your banker stealing the money from your account? Fair enough. I would object on the grounds of him breaking the law. Now, if you would be kind enough to address my two questions: 1. Whose morals must we all adopt, since we are not entitled to having individual morals? 2. Is it immoral to not try to return the $1 bill to its rightful owner? AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
[q
A font war will not prove your point, Mel. Atheism is lack of belief in God, not a belief in lack of god.
AGG Again, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD, AGG. Faith is not strictly defined by a belief in GOD. It is defined by: belief that is not based on proofAthiesm is based on a BELIEF, therefore, it is FAITH.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
If we are all entitled to our own morals, then on what grounds could you possibly object to your banker stealing the money from your account? Fair enough. I would object on the grounds of him breaking the law. But that is a moral standard that dictates it is MORAL to abide by a law. It may be his moral standard to BREAK LAWS. And we are all entitled to our own morals, right? So, you would have no grounds to object to his theft if he does not believe it is moral to abide by the law. Now, if you would be kind enough to address my two questions:
1. Whose morals must we all adopt, since we are not entitled to having individual morals? Well, since we are all entitled to our own morals, as you have asserted, then I am ENTITLED to make up morals for YOU ALL. So, I assert MY MORALS as the universal standard.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Again, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD, AGG. Faith is not strictly defined by a belief in GOD.
Athiesm is based on a BELIEF, therefore, it is FAITH. No, that is not correct. Atheism is lack of belief in god. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Fair enough. I would object on the grounds of him breaking the law. REALLY...are you sure you want to stick with this train of thought? You can only object if there is a law against something? So, these executives that get their "Golden Parachutes" are okay with you. They didn't break any LAW. You have NO objections? The USE of a LAW to allow child rapists to go free....no objection from you...well it's the law. Would YOU object to abortion tomorrow if it were ruled illegal? Are you sincerely saying that YOUR mind is made up by the laws passed by he fools in Washington?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Again, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD, AGG. Faith is not strictly defined by a belief in GOD.
Athiesm is based on a BELIEF, therefore, it is FAITH. No, that is not correct. Atheism is lack of belief in god. AGG Oh, right... 2 + 2 = 4...but 2 + 2 is NOT equal to 4. Go figure. :crosseyedcrazy:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
huh? You side stepped this question, AGG. If we are all entitled to our own morality, as you assert, then by what standard could you then demand moral absolutes from your BANKER? I don't demand moral absoluteness from my banker, as you apparently do. I demand from my banker the adherence to laws; if I had to expect morality from my banker, I'd be in deep doo doo. But, you have no grounds to demand any such thing. There is no moral imperative to abide by the law. That is up to HIM because you have asserted we are all entitled to our own morality. You can't use the legality of the act as a standard, because if morals are relative, then we all get to pick and choose the laws we abide by. We do get to pick which laws we abide by. And if we pick wrongly, we end up in jail. Has nothing to do with morality.[/quote] Wrong, it does too. All laws are based on morals and if morals are relative, it may not be our choice to abide by that law. If morals are relative, then so is adherence to the LAW. Nowhere have I said that slavery and killing Jews is moral. Nowhere. Those societies considered it moral. So you are agreeing that killing JEWS and owning slaves WAS MORAL? We are saying the same thing, Mel. Owning slaves was considered moral by the society. Now it's not. Morality changed. My point precisely. AGG [/quote] Again, you did not answer my question. WAS SLAVERY EVER MORAL? And was it MORAL to kill Jews? EVER? If that is the case, do you believe that it was wrong for others to stop the "MORAL" activities of slaveholders and Jew killers?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
Again, atheism is a BELIEF that there is no GOD, AGG. Faith is not strictly defined by a belief in GOD.
Athiesm is based on a BELIEF, therefore, it is FAITH. No, that is not correct. Atheism is lack of belief in god. AGG Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
But that is a moral standard that dictates it is MORAL to abide by a law. It may be his moral standard to BREAK LAWS. And we are all entitled to our own morals, right? Right. We may choose to break our moral standards (in which case we have to sleep at night with our choices) and we may choose to break the laws (in which case we have to sleep with cellmate Bubba at night). So, you would have no grounds to object to his theft if he does not believe it is moral to abide by the law. I would, and it would be the grounds of him breaking the law. My or his morality has nothing to do with this. So, I assert MY MORALS as the universal standard. I'm glad you see the absurdity of your position that one person's morals must apply to us all. AGG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. That is the definition of FAITH, AGG. And it takes ALOT of faith to be an athiest. More than most have.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345 |
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. same source: 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
|
|
|
Moderated by Ariel, BerlinMB, Denali, Fordude, IrishGreen, MBeliever, MBSync, McLovin, Mizar, PhoenixMB, Toujours
|
1 members (rossini),
995
guests, and
48
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,623
Posts2,323,511
Members72,009
| |
Most Online3,224
May 9th, 2025
|
|
|
|
