Core Values

Off Topic
61

[quote]Cortes wrote:
To be clear, you’re asking a different question before we’ve firmly established the first. We need to determine that a morality does indeed exist first, then we can determine whence it arises.

Otherwise, it will be like arguing Bible quotes with an atheist. [/quote]

I believe that morality exists, but only in our own minds. I do not believe that morality existed before humans did and when we are gone it will cease to exist as well. It is a human construct, pure and simple. A power bigger and stronger and more mysterious than us is something I DO believe exists. But I also believe that most of what we refer to as “God” is also a human construct. I do not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. Therefore, I do not believe that morality laid out within it is an absolute.

So, once more, what is it about raping a baby that makes it absolutely “bad”?

62

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?[/quote]

I will be happy to address all of this, but first I have a crucial point to make that everything else hinges upon.[/quote]

Let me ask you this: what, in your mind, makes the raping of a baby (or anything else for that matter) “bad”? What is the prerequisite that must exist for anything to be “bad”?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not being evasive or coy. It just doesn’t matter.

What I’m trying to establish is that you are a moral absolutist just like I am.

You know, in your heart, that certain acts are inherently evil. Your qualification with the word “sick” demonstrates that.

Just because something can be explained away as the result of something else does not negate the inherent wrongness of the act itself. [/quote]

I’m not so egotistical to think that just because I feel a certain way, that feeling is an absolute that has existed far before humans did and will continue to exist far after we are gone.

So I ask you again, what is it that makes raping a baby absolutely “bad”?[/quote]

I’ll answer yours as soon as you give me a firm answer to mine.

I’m not asking about your feelings. I’m asking if you believe the act is wrong in any case. Yes or no? I’m not trying to trick you.

*edited typo[/quote]

I already answered your question. No, I do not think it is absolutely an immoral act. I personally think it is highly immoral.

63

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?[/quote]

I will be happy to address all of this, but first I have a crucial point to make that everything else hinges upon.[/quote]

Let me ask you this: what, in your mind, makes the raping of a baby (or anything else for that matter) “bad”? What is the prerequisite that must exist for anything to be “bad”?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not being evasive or coy. It just doesn’t matter.

What I’m trying to establish is that you are a moral absolutist just like I am.

You know, in your heart, that certain acts are inherently evil. Your qualification with the word “sick” demonstrates that.

Just because something can be explained away as the result of something else does not negate the inherent wrongness of the act itself. [/quote]

I’m not so egotistical to think that just because I feel a certain way, that feeling is an absolute that has existed far before humans did and will continue to exist far after we are gone.

So I ask you again, what is it that makes raping a baby absolutely “bad”?[/quote]

I’ll answer yours as soon as you give me a firm answer to mine.

I’m not asking about your feelings. I’m asking if you believe the act is wrong in any case. Yes or no? I’m not trying to trick you.

*edited typo[/quote]

I already answered your question. No, I do not think it is absolutely an immoral act. I personally think it is highly immoral.[/quote]

You’re being wishy washy. Either you believe it or you don’t. You never take such a vacillating stand on any other issue.

64

I had the same debates with a friend before about how everyone has different morals, and I didn’t necessarily give a fuck about other’s morals.

Im’ not into advancing myself at other’s losses I think you can be positive and help other’s while seemingly winning at most of the things you do in life. It’s a good shot at being happy and complete. I think if you try to make people feel beneath you by being great or seemingly greater to your own standards you can isolate yourself or others won’t want anything to do with such a ruthless person.
I’m sure it’s a good mindset to use for sports/ politics/ business and so on, but in everyday life it will make you a seemingly giant ass.

I think your right on it being a human construct much like everything we know because perception distorts reality. Were obsessed with the why and how to try and describe reality. Even science changes over time or is used to prove values that are of importance to those living in that time. That is why science majors doctors and people who study science erk me if they think they know more then every one else because they do science. I see them as tools to the process not gods. Fucking arrogance erks me.

65

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I had the same debates with a friend before about how everyone has different morals, and I didn’t necessarily give a fuck about other’s morals.

Im’ not into advancing myself at other’s losses I think you can be positive and help other’s while seemingly winning at most of the things you do in life. It’s a good shot at being happy and complete. I think if you try to make people feel beneath you by being great or seemingly greater to your own standards you can isolate yourself or others won’t want anything to do with such a ruthless person.
I’m sure it’s a good mindset to use for sports/ politics/ business and so on, but in everyday life it will make you a seemingly giant ass.

I think your right on it being a human construct much like everything we know because perception distorts reality. Were obsessed with the why and how to try and describe reality. Even science changes over time or is used to prove values that are of importance to those living in that time. That is why science majors doctors and people who study science erk me if they think they know more then every one else because they do science. I see them as tools to the process not gods. Fucking arrogance erks me.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is, nothing you or anyone else believes has any ultimate meaning or point.

Sorry to be “arrogant.”

66

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?[/quote]

I will be happy to address all of this, but first I have a crucial point to make that everything else hinges upon.[/quote]

Let me ask you this: what, in your mind, makes the raping of a baby (or anything else for that matter) “bad”? What is the prerequisite that must exist for anything to be “bad”?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not being evasive or coy. It just doesn’t matter.

What I’m trying to establish is that you are a moral absolutist just like I am.

You know, in your heart, that certain acts are inherently evil. Your qualification with the word “sick” demonstrates that.

Just because something can be explained away as the result of something else does not negate the inherent wrongness of the act itself. [/quote]

I’m not so egotistical to think that just because I feel a certain way, that feeling is an absolute that has existed far before humans did and will continue to exist far after we are gone.

So I ask you again, what is it that makes raping a baby absolutely “bad”?[/quote]

I’ll answer yours as soon as you give me a firm answer to mine.

I’m not asking about your feelings. I’m asking if you believe the act is wrong in any case. Yes or no? I’m not trying to trick you.

*edited typo[/quote]

I already answered your question. No, I do not think it is absolutely an immoral act. I personally think it is highly immoral.[/quote]

You’re being wishy washy. Either you believe it or you don’t. You never take such a vacillating stand on any other issue. [/quote]

I’m not vacillating at all. Absolute morality does not exist. Morality can exist, but not absolutely. Morality depends on humans to exist. It was created by humans and as such, it is relative. I already proved as much with regards to murder. You or someone else in here said that murder was inherently immoral, meaning that murder is ALWAYS immoral. But this is impossible, since murder can only exist within a system of codified law. And codified law can only exist where there are humans to codify them. The statement “murder is immoral” does not hold true in a state of nature. Therefore, murder is NOT inherently immoral. It is only immoral when WE make it so. It needs us to be immoral, so it cannot be absolute.

67

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I had the same debates with a friend before about how everyone has different morals, and I didn’t necessarily give a fuck about other’s morals.

Im’ not into advancing myself at other’s losses I think you can be positive and help other’s while seemingly winning at most of the things you do in life. It’s a good shot at being happy and complete. I think if you try to make people feel beneath you by being great or seemingly greater to your own standards you can isolate yourself or others won’t want anything to do with such a ruthless person.
I’m sure it’s a good mindset to use for sports/ politics/ business and so on, but in everyday life it will make you a seemingly giant ass.

I think your right on it being a human construct much like everything we know because perception distorts reality. Were obsessed with the why and how to try and describe reality. Even science changes over time or is used to prove values that are of importance to those living in that time. That is why science majors doctors and people who study science erk me if they think they know more then every one else because they do science. I see them as tools to the process not gods. Fucking arrogance erks me.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is, nothing you or anyone else believes has any ultimate meaning or point.

Sorry to be “arrogant.”[/quote]

Define “ultimate meaning or point”.

68

Can One say they believe morals exist if they know they situationaly throw many morals away? Not the morals that tell me something is inherently evil, like Cortes said but say something lesser on the evil spectrum, commit an act that is at odds with your morals and dont feel bad about it. Still a morally driven person? Or just deluded into believing they have some guiding principals for their actions.

69

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?[/quote]

I will be happy to address all of this, but first I have a crucial point to make that everything else hinges upon.[/quote]

Let me ask you this: what, in your mind, makes the raping of a baby (or anything else for that matter) “bad”? What is the prerequisite that must exist for anything to be “bad”?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not being evasive or coy. It just doesn’t matter.

What I’m trying to establish is that you are a moral absolutist just like I am.

You know, in your heart, that certain acts are inherently evil. Your qualification with the word “sick” demonstrates that.

Just because something can be explained away as the result of something else does not negate the inherent wrongness of the act itself. [/quote]

I’m not so egotistical to think that just because I feel a certain way, that feeling is an absolute that has existed far before humans did and will continue to exist far after we are gone.

So I ask you again, what is it that makes raping a baby absolutely “bad”?[/quote]

I’ll answer yours as soon as you give me a firm answer to mine.

I’m not asking about your feelings. I’m asking if you believe the act is wrong in any case. Yes or no? I’m not trying to trick you.

*edited typo[/quote]

I already answered your question. No, I do not think it is absolutely an immoral act. I personally think it is highly immoral.[/quote]

You’re being wishy washy. Either you believe it or you don’t. You never take such a vacillating stand on any other issue. [/quote]

I’m not vacillating at all. Absolute morality does not exist. It can exist, but not absolutely. Morality depends on humans to exist. It was created by humans and as such, it is relative. I already proved as much with regards to murder. You or someone else in here said that murder was inherently immoral, meaning that murder is ALWAYS immoral. But this is impossible, since murder can only exist within a system of codified law. And codified law can only exist where there are humans to codify them. The statement “murder is immoral” does not hold true in a state of nature. Therefore, murder is NOT inherently immoral. It is only immoral when WE make it so. It needs us to be immoral, so it cannot be absolute.[/quote]

This is not a rebuttal of the existence of an absolute morality. Does math exist only because we dictate that 2+2=4, or does it exist independent of our discovery of it? You’re saying that because certain humans break the law, or have been confused or duped into believing something other than the law, or have manipulated the common consciousness to serve their needs, that moral law itself does not exist.

Just because an agreed upon system of laws exists, does not mean that it defines morality. The Aztecs had a particularly egregious system of laws involving slavery, state institutionalized murder, and cannibalism. We KNOW that this was wrong, despite what they may have believed to the contrary. Their beliefs and laws had no effect whatsoever on the inherent evil of the acts of slavery, murder and cannibalism.

You are confusing human inclinations and transgressions with moral law itself. They are two entirely different things.

70

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
I had the same debates with a friend before about how everyone has different morals, and I didn’t necessarily give a fuck about other’s morals.

Im’ not into advancing myself at other’s losses I think you can be positive and help other’s while seemingly winning at most of the things you do in life. It’s a good shot at being happy and complete. I think if you try to make people feel beneath you by being great or seemingly greater to your own standards you can isolate yourself or others won’t want anything to do with such a ruthless person.
I’m sure it’s a good mindset to use for sports/ politics/ business and so on, but in everyday life it will make you a seemingly giant ass.

I think your right on it being a human construct much like everything we know because perception distorts reality. Were obsessed with the why and how to try and describe reality. Even science changes over time or is used to prove values that are of importance to those living in that time. That is why science majors doctors and people who study science erk me if they think they know more then every one else because they do science. I see them as tools to the process not gods. Fucking arrogance erks me.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is, nothing you or anyone else believes has any ultimate meaning or point.

Sorry to be “arrogant.”[/quote]

Define “ultimate meaning or point”.[/quote]

I’m going to stay on one topic at a time for now. See my previous post.

71

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
Can One say they believe morals exist if they know they situationaly throw many morals away? Not the morals that tell me something is inherently evil, like Cortes said but say something lesser on the evil spectrum, commit an act that is at odds with your morals and dont feel bad about it. Still a morally driven person? Or just deluded into believing they have some guiding principals for their actions.[/quote]

If they are truly deluded, confused or mistaken, without an iota of self-delusion or prevarication on their part, then they are not at fault for engaging in an immoral act, but the act itself remains unchanged. And evil act is an evil act.

I think that in most cases in human history, however, people know, if only deep, deep down, whether or not what they’re doing is right or wrong. That’s what we call a conscience. Even vastly evil people usually know their acts are evil. They have just stopped caring.

72

Cortes I don’t find you arrogant at all. I believe that things have as much meaning as you instill in them. I don’t know why but society has seemed this way to me for a while. It is seemingly Nihlist and can leave you in a fucked mind state if you dwell on it. So I try to instill as much joy I can into shit I like because I know in the end nothing matters to human’s but their own conception of their realities. I think we are here because of random chance and a whole bunch of space shit that is over my head. I’ve read a bit on physics and theories of how the universe was created. Doesn’t seem to be one solution but a combo of different theories. I think that people need to understand that different ideas work for different people I dont think people should think as I do nor do I want them to make me think as they finding your own theory is as important as life it’s self.

73

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
Cortes I don’t find you arrogant at all. I believe that things have as much meaning as you instill in them. I don’t know why but society has seemed this way to me for a while. It is seemingly Nihlist and can leave you in a fucked mind state if you dwell on it. So I try to instill as much joy I can into shit I like because I know in the end nothing matters to human’s but their own conception of their realities. I think we are here because of random chance and a whole bunch of space shit that is over my head. I’ve read a bit on physics and theories of how the universe was created. Doesn’t seem to be one solution but a combo of different theories. I think that people need to understand that different ideas work for different people I dont think people should think as I do nor do I want them to make me think as they finding your own theory is as important as life it’s self. [/quote]

Watch my argument with DB Cooper. I think it will cover most of the points you raise.

Sometimes arrogance can be a good thing, if it saves a life or a soul. Some people just don’t like to hear what they need to hear, and call the messenger arrogant to excuse or ignore their own culpability in the matter.

74

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
Can One say they believe morals exist if they know they situationaly throw many morals away? Not the morals that tell me something is inherently evil, like Cortes said but say something lesser on the evil spectrum, commit an act that is at odds with your morals and dont feel bad about it. Still a morally driven person? Or just deluded into believing they have some guiding principals for their actions.[/quote]

I think what it ultimately boils down to is that it is not in one’s self-interest to actively proclaim themselves immoral or behave in ways that they KNOW virtually everyone around them feels is immoral. For the most part, anyways. But that is simply a function of society. So we lay claim to some system of morality based on something bigger than ourselves (absoluteness) for appearance’s sake. But in general, we act primarily in our own self-interest and “morality” is secondary to that.

If we value life, then we must also value that which keeps us alive. In this respect, I don’t think anything that keeps us alive, or improves our life, is immoral. That is why I believe we create our own morality, or are at least capable of doing so. “Morality” was far different pre-Christianity than post-Christianity. Homeric, and later Roman, morality is different on many fundamental levels than Judeo-Christian morality. Judeo-Christian morality in many ways values that which endangers our lives. That isn’t to say that Jesus was immoral for letting himself be crucified while offering no resistance whatsoever. However, if we were to all behave in the same manner toward our persecutors we would be dead while our persecutors would live. We may think that our sacrifice was moral in some way, and perhaps it was, but the end result is a celebration of death, not life. Judeo-Christian values downgrade life on Earth while life after Earth is glorified. Which is fine, but again, the end result is a celebration of death, not life. And whoever our Creator is, the greatest gift given to us by It is life.

75

That being said I do have my own morals I try to follow but are they the same as others no, they are relative to what I have learned /experienced and so forth. I don’t believe in ultimate truths, things that are right now will be wrong in the future based on the collective or individual conscious of society or people. I think that humans are flawed and constantly do the same shit over and over and over and think were making forward progress where in were headed towards an ultimate end or state of righteousness. I believe that the here and now is as good as it gets. The present , I personally need to learn how to make use of in better ways to make life more fulfilling.

76

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What about killing babies? Is that immoral in an absolute sense? What about an animal that eats her young? Is she immoral? Of course not, since she lacks the capacity to even begin to comprehend what is right and wrong. So, does that mean that a sociopath is incapable of moral or immoral action since he, too, is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong?[/quote]

I will be happy to address all of this, but first I have a crucial point to make that everything else hinges upon.[/quote]

Let me ask you this: what, in your mind, makes the raping of a baby (or anything else for that matter) “bad”? What is the prerequisite that must exist for anything to be “bad”?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not being evasive or coy. It just doesn’t matter.

What I’m trying to establish is that you are a moral absolutist just like I am.

You know, in your heart, that certain acts are inherently evil. Your qualification with the word “sick” demonstrates that.

Just because something can be explained away as the result of something else does not negate the inherent wrongness of the act itself. [/quote]

I’m not so egotistical to think that just because I feel a certain way, that feeling is an absolute that has existed far before humans did and will continue to exist far after we are gone.

So I ask you again, what is it that makes raping a baby absolutely “bad”?[/quote]

I’ll answer yours as soon as you give me a firm answer to mine.

I’m not asking about your feelings. I’m asking if you believe the act is wrong in any case. Yes or no? I’m not trying to trick you.

*edited typo[/quote]

I already answered your question. No, I do not think it is absolutely an immoral act. I personally think it is highly immoral.[/quote]

You’re being wishy washy. Either you believe it or you don’t. You never take such a vacillating stand on any other issue. [/quote]

I’m not vacillating at all. Absolute morality does not exist. It can exist, but not absolutely. Morality depends on humans to exist. It was created by humans and as such, it is relative. I already proved as much with regards to murder. You or someone else in here said that murder was inherently immoral, meaning that murder is ALWAYS immoral. But this is impossible, since murder can only exist within a system of codified law. And codified law can only exist where there are humans to codify them. The statement “murder is immoral” does not hold true in a state of nature. Therefore, murder is NOT inherently immoral. It is only immoral when WE make it so. It needs us to be immoral, so it cannot be absolute.[/quote]

This is not a rebuttal of the existence of an absolute morality. Does math exist only because we dictate that 2+2=4, or does it exist independent of our discovery of it? You’re saying that because certain humans break the law, or have been confused or duped into believing something other than the law, or have manipulated the common consciousness to serve their needs, that moral law itself does not exist.

Just because an agreed upon system of laws exists, does not mean that it defines morality. The Aztecs had a particularly egregious system of laws involving slavery, state institutionalized murder, and cannibalism. We KNOW that this was wrong, despite what they may have believed to the contrary. Their beliefs and laws had no effect whatsoever on the inherent evil of the acts of slavery, murder and cannibalism.

You are confusing human inclinations and transgressions with moral law itself. They are two entirely different things. [/quote]

2+2=4 is natural law put into human terms. It has no bearing on moral law, which needs humans to define it. Your later post about arrogance essentially proves this point. Sometimes arrogance is good, sometimes it is not. It can be moral or immoral, but it depends on US as humans to be one or the other. It is not absolutely moral or immoral.

What is it about raping a baby that is absolutely immoral? That is an action that can only happen when humans are involved. Is it immoral because it causes the baby pain? If so, then for that to be absolutely immoral pain must also be absolutely immoral. But we know that that is not the case at all. Causing mental anguish is not absolutely immoral either.

The bottom line is that anything considered to be immoral depends on humans to define it as such. Raping a baby depends on humans to exist before it can happen, right? You’ve given me an example of something we all agree is immoral. But it’s sort of like Socrates’ idea of forms and sensibles, except that there is no form of morality, only sensible morality, which depends on us.

Even if murder is not simply unlawful killing but unjust killing, how do we define what justice is? Is the strong killing the weak and helpless immoral? If so, then that means that an animal killing a smaller, weaker animal would be unjust as well. But we know this is not the case. Why is it not the case? Because that sort of morality does not apply to animals. Well, if it doesn’t apply to animals but only to humans, then morality cannot be absolute because, again, it depends on humans to exist in the first place.

2+2=4 does not apply here because A) it is not a question of morality, and B) it is a law of nature, meaning that it exists with or without humans.

77

I read all your responses twice Cortes. I am glad your train of thought works for you. I don’t believe it but I respect anybody that has solid reasoning to why they believe what they do.

78

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

But in general, we act primarily in our own self-interest and “morality” is secondary to that. [/quote]

very true. This is what I was trying to get at. I always thought I was a very morally driven person but in the past year Ive done a lot of things that surprised me and shook my morals around a little. My list of core values has changed a lot. I actually feel like now that ive had opportunities to act in my own self interest and done so its easier to be honest with myself about what exactly I value.

[quote]
If we value life, then we must also value that which keeps us alive. In this respect, I don’t think anything that keeps us alive, or improves our life, is immoral. That is why I believe we create our own morality, or are at least capable of doing so. “Morality” was far different pre-Christianity than post-Christianity. Homeric, and later Roman, morality is different on many fundamental levels than Judeo-Christian morality. Judeo-Christian morality in many ways values that which endangers our lives. That isn’t to say that Jesus was immoral for letting himself be crucified while offering no resistance whatsoever. However, if we were to all behave in the same manner toward our persecutors we would be dead while our persecutors would live. We may think that our sacrifice was moral in some way, and perhaps it was, but the end result is a celebration of death, not life. Judeo-Christian values downgrade life on Earth while life after Earth is glorified. Which is fine, but again, the end result is a celebration of death, not life. And whoever our Creator is, the greatest gift given to us by It is life.[/quote]

Any Judeo christians in the audience tonight?..

“degrade Life on Earth while life after Earth is glorified.” I like that. Puts in perspective the morals of a devout Christian.

I think its fair to say that there are a fair number of egnostics and athiests here with us. We more or less (usually more) choose our own meanings of good and evil. We dont follow blindly the morals written in the Old books, and turn away from any others. I find many of the believers out there ive crossed paths with were like this. Always interesting what happens when we do cross paths. The unmovable object and the unstoppable force. Unstoppable because im always willing to change or adapt my views. Or at least try.

79

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
Cortes I don’t find you arrogant at all. I believe that things have as much meaning as you instill in them. I don’t know why but society has seemed this way to me for a while. It is seemingly Nihlist and can leave you in a fucked mind state if you dwell on it. So I try to instill as much joy I can into shit I like because I know in the end nothing matters to human’s but their own conception of their realities. I think we are here because of random chance and a whole bunch of space shit that is over my head. I’ve read a bit on physics and theories of how the universe was created. Doesn’t seem to be one solution but a combo of different theories. I think that people need to understand that different ideas work for different people I dont think people should think as I do nor do I want them to make me think as they finding your own theory is as important as life it’s self. [/quote]

Watch my argument with DB Cooper. I think it will cover most of the points you raise.

Sometimes arrogance can be a good thing, if it saves a life or a soul. Some people just don’t like to hear what they need to hear, and call the messenger arrogant to excuse or ignore their own culpability in the matter. [/quote]

Watch what argument with DBCooper? You’ve disappeared from the thread all of a sudden. I don’t mean to be critical here, but this thread is starting to remind me of the thread in which you and I argued for page after page about gender roles and then about 15 pages into it you admitted that you didn’t know the difference between gender and sex.

I don’t know what argument you’re trying to make here, really. I agree that morality exists, that there is in fact moral and immoral behavior in this world. My point is that it is not ABSOLUTE, but rather an entirely human construct. If preying on the weak is absolutely immoral, then that means that preying on the weak is ALWAYS immoral. And if morality is not a purely human construct, then it must be applied across the board. If morality is absolute and not purely a human construct, then it must apply to everything and not just humans. But you and I both know that it is not a question of morality when a lion preys on a weak, injured or smaller animal, for instance.

Natural law, such as the laws of science, are about as absolute as it gets. The laws of gravity, for instance, always exist. Those laws existed long before humans discovered them. They aren’t a human construct. The existence of the solar system and the gravitational fields of the planets within it prove as much. The same cannot be said about morality.

80

Time, dude. I’m prioritizing right now. This thread is not at the top of the list.

You know me well enough to know I don’t shy from an argument. Come on.

And nice try with the “I won the gender thread,” line.