I have a few questions to the religious.

[yourwrong]

be quiet texasdave whether morals exist or not is not evidence for or against god. Stop using appeal by emotion it is a fallace argument. An atheist can be just as morally correct as a christian if not more because we do not discriminate usually against an race, religion , sexual orientation, or culture. Meaning we respect others and try to avoid hurting people in any way. ( I am not saying athiests can't be evil. I'm saying most athiest aren't and are actually more morally correct then christians.)

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, Moral relativism is what allowed the abuses of slavery.

But god's opposition to slavery prevented it from ever happening, right?

Quote by: texasdave Just because the majority uses its force of numbers does not make the majority right.

In moral terms it does, because there is no right other than what we decide is right.

Quote by: texasdave It simply makes it the majority opinion. Something being right is right intrinsically.

Prove it.

Quote by: texasdave In and of itself. Rape is wrong in and of itself regardless of anyone's opinion.

Prove it.

Quote by: texasdave To think otherwise is to invite abuses of minorities and oppression.

Ah, but that is not proof; that is the logical fallacy known as the appeal to consequences. Prove to me that rape is wrong, in and of itself. Don't use any logic or arguments. Just prove it, in and of itself.

Quote by: texasdave Communism is a perfect example of this. And it, as a system, is a total failure. Moral relativists are even guilty of hypocrisy in this area. For example, Roe v Wade went against the majority opinion of the American people at that time but the moral relativists claim that this is a fundamental right that transcends the majority. Thus making themselves liars.

But I am not saying that the majority's opinion makes something more or less right. It simply means that more people think it is or is not right. It also generally implies that that particular belief will have force behind it, since majority rule certainly does imply greater physical force.

In the specific instance of Roe v. Wade, the decision is necessarily made by the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the foundation of our country. People who live here and abide by our laws are giving their tacit consent to the rules set down in the Constitution; therefore, anything that is supported by our Constitution is by defintion the opinion held by the majority. In those rare cases when it is not held by the majority, the majority has the ability to amend the Constitution to make it represent our opinion.

The right to choose is guaranteed by our Constitution, according to our Supreme Court. Since the Constitution has not yet been amended to ban it, clearly the majority's opinion supports that right. Even if they say they don't, they do.

But you know what? That still doesn't make abortion right or wrong. My decision that it is right makes it right to me, and your decision that it is wrong makes it wrong to you. The fact that we both live in the US gives our implied consent to the legal right to choose. And that's moral relativism.

[texasdave]

yourwrong ( appropriate name for you, keep it)
Atheists can only be moral in their own eyes because that is the only source of their morals.

[texasdave]

coffee,
Prove to you that rape is wrong? O.K. It is called the principle of progressive damage. It starts with an analogy and goes like this;
If you run your car with no oil it causes a catastrophic result, the engine seizes and is destroyed. Now, if you run your car with the proper amount of oil then you get long life from your engine. The less oil you put in it the more closely you approach the catastrophic result and the more progressive damage you do.
So, apply that principle to morals. If no one steals then there is more peace and order and harmony in society. If everyone steals then society totally breaks down. So, it is morally wrong to steal. The more stealing, the more progressive damage to society.
An appeal to consequences when referring to morals is NOT a logical fallacy. Morals in and of themselves are specifically intended to appeal to a desired set of consequences. Do not steal-consequence...safer society. Steal- consequence... less safe society. So, result, do not steal.

[yourwrong]

No the source of our morals comes from genetics, the society we live in, and reason. Basically what is morally correct is what causes the least amount of damage to everyone. It other words killing somebody usually has negative consequences and causes pain. But killing Hitler would not be wrong because doing so would do more good then bad.

[texasdave]

I agree those are sources of influence for morals but ultimately mankind is too destructive and stupid to decide for himself. Just watch the news you'll see what I mean.

[Jack]

Atheists can only be moral in their own eyes because that is the only source of their morals.

So beside a weak attempt to insult yourwrong,

( appropriate name for you, keep it)

what's the point of that? In other words, yeah, so what?

[yourwrong]

Well see an athiest can be just as morally correct. God is not neccesary for morals. Christianity only gives you more of a reason to do good things. Its not neccesary as I'm not going out and murdering random people.

[Bnet505]

I believe, at least in my experience, Atheists are more moral due to not hating people based on small details like sexuality, race, views and much else. I don't hate religious people. My friends and family are religious. I hate extremists like Texasdave who hate gays, abortionists, etc. based on theology.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: texasdave coffee, Prove to you that rape is wrong? O.K. It is called the principle of progressive damage. It starts with an analogy and goes like this; If you run your car with no oil it causes a catastrophic result, the engine seizes and is destroyed. Now, if you run your car with the proper amount of oil then you get long life from your engine. The less oil you put in it the more closely you approach the catastrophic result and the more progressive damage you do. So, apply that principle to morals. If no one steals then there is more peace and order and harmony in society. If everyone steals then society totally breaks down. So, it is morally wrong to steal. The more stealing, the more progressive damage to society.

You haven't proved that rape is wrong. You've proven that things that necessarily lead to progressive damage to a positive state are wrong. You will have to prove that society is necessarily positive, that rape necessarily leads to progressive damage, and that this progressive damage can actually threaten society. You actually haven't done any of these things. Let's take it a piece at a time so that this is clear.

If no one steals then there is more peace and order and harmony in society.

Unproven. If theft is a necessary part of the economic structure of the society, then theft would promote the stability of the society. You also have not proven that theft leads to violence, disorder, or disharmony. You also have not proven that society itself is a positive end.

If everyone steals then society totally breaks down.

Also unproven. Also undefined: what does it mean for society to "totally break down?"

So, it is morally wrong to steal. The more stealing, the more progressive damage to society.

Unproven as the premises leading to this conclusion are unproven. Still couldn't be proven as morals are not necessarily defined as what is best for a certain society -- and you yourself don't think of them that way, Dave. I told you that you had to prove that rape is wrong in and of itself, without logic or argumentation: you just have to show me that the concept of rape is intrinsically wrong, that something about it is abhorrent to all of God's creatures because God determined that rape was wrong and made us abhor it. Prove that for me, please -- or else admit that logic and reason have some place in determining morals, and thus that morals are not absolute and created by an omnipotent external force.

In other words, Dave? The more you argue this, the more you lose.

Quote by: texasdave An appeal to consequences when referring to morals is NOT a logical fallacy. Morals in and of themselves are specifically intended to appeal to a desired set of consequences. Do not steal-consequence...safer society. Steal- consequence... less safe society. So, result, do not steal.

If you are stating this as a desirability argument -- that a moral against stealing is desirable because not having that moral leads to an undesirable result, more stealing, then you are correct. But you're not arguing that; you're arguing that morality is determined by god. Which means you are arguing that the moral against stealing is right, or correct -- true, in other words. In which case, it is a logical fallacy, as I stated. So are you arguing as a moral relativist or as a moral absolutist?

And you still haven't established that stealing leads to more stealing, or that stealing is bad, or that not stealing is good. Care to try again? Or would you rather stick to proving that rape is bad, which is after all how this started?