morality is such a terrible proof of god's existence.
It's not that mystifying, it's not that beyond us, i am insulted to be represented through that fabricated converstaion through that rather dumb atheist haha. It said it wasn't fabricated, but it sure seemed like it was.
anyway i'll change the convo to be better.
Atheist: I think Morality is relative. We can't really pass judgement on people since we all come from different backgrounds.
Me: Excuse me, but aren't you passing judgement now when you say "We can't" do something?
Atheist: "We can't really" is the key phrase. Isolating it to that makes it infringing in a way that is only out of context. We cna pass judgement if we want, but we must realize it's all relative. There is no absolute morals is what i was saying. Then you could say i'm passing judgement that there is no absolute, but i'd like to hear one decent argument for you to discount why that would be a bad idea.
Me: Can you please tell me how you can have any order with moral relativism? Wouldn't we just have pure anarchy?
Atheist: You're thinking through a utilitarianistic and moreso a religious mindset. You assume the goal of all humanity is to have order, when it's not. Sure, we could very well be anarchy. Do i really care? It doesn't matter at all. That doesn't do anything for you.
Me: But what if I don't want that?
Atheist: Then you are complaining about something which you wouldn't be able to change. Have fun with that.
Me: Why should I do that as a moral relativist?
Atheist: why not? We can complain about it if we want, we don't have to if we don't want. Nothing really matters it's not as if my point of view is filled with hypocracies. "Want" doesn't really have anything to do with it. Why are you asking that question?
Me: It seems to me that you need some sort of absolute moral judgement even for you to articulate your moral relativism because you are assuming that it is a "good" thing for us as species to survive.
Atheist: Well, i'm not, that's from the old conversation before PsychoSnowman made the atheist not seem so stupid and not play into everything the creationist wanted. We don't "need" to survive. That's a creationist mindset, don't confuse them. Right now, you're too entrenched within a creationist mindset to prove anything, all you are doing is making observations and hoping i think the same way when i don't. I don't need an absolute moral judgement, all i need is an acknowledgement of perspectivistic thought. That's all i really advocate. It's really simple, stop putting words in my mouth. Morality really proves nothing, it's several socially accepted tenets that have transcended that level into something called morals,but nothing really great or mystifying. How did they come about? Easy, people wrote them down and called them the word of god and faith sprung. Or, people could have just thought the same way as a world collectively. They aren't all exactly the same, you know that. It's not THAT inconceivable. What does morality really prove in regards to god? I have no idea, please tell me.
Ethics coming only from an absolute truth? no that's not a too big jump, it's a big jump of faith though. To say it's impossible for it to not have arisen by itself is to discount a whole lot of human intelligence. We aren't drones. Furthermore, why couldn't morality just have come from the bible and the like? by saying god doesn't exist doens't eliminate the existence of the sacred writings that have morals in them....i don't see where that person is going with this. Morals were established through religion, and by themselves. Easily explained.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 01-20-2003 at 06:01 AM
|