• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Questioning Religion & the Religious

ChrisL said:
If morality was objective, then everyone would be basically "good." Morals are subjective based upon culture and teachings about what is and is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

No. As I said before, an objective morality does not presume that everyone is ingrained with that morality. You're arguing against a straw man.
 
Wake said:
To make the claim that science can explain everything and that God(s) don't exist, or that God(s) does exist and has created the world are absolute claims to the truth.
Click to expand...

Who has said that? Who says any of that? Whether or not science can explain everything has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of any gods, those are two entirely separate claims and the existence of God has NOTHING to do with what you initially said or what I responded to. To claim otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.

It is too early. It "could" be that supernatural things don't exist. It "could" be that they do.
Click to expand...

This isn't about what could be true, it's about what can be demonstrated to be true with evidence. "Could be" is irrelevant. "Is" is all that matters.
 
phattonez said:
What does that have to do with objective morality? Objective morality is the natural law, and it is discovered by reason. It is not necessarily intuitive. Parts are intuitive, but others are logical consequences of known truths.
Click to expand...

How are these "truths" known?
 
phattonez said:
No. As I said before, an objective morality does not presume that everyone is ingrained with that morality. You're arguing against a straw man.
Click to expand...

There simply is no objective morality, sorry.
 
The Mayan people performed sacrifices on living human beings. They did this because it was culturally acceptable and an acceptable part of THEIR society, according to their morals and values. OUR morals and values are different.

In some cultures, murder is NOT wrong because morality is subjective. If you are raised in a society where sacrificing people is the norm, that is going to be the "norm" for you.

Ancient Rome was one of the MOST violent cultures. They killed and pillaged MANY times over. Why? Because it benefited them. Morals didn't play a role whatsoever.
 
phattonez said:
They are deduced from known truths.
Click to expand...

That doesn't not answer the question in any way. Again, what are "known truths"? Are you claiming that when you are born, your morals are already set and there for you? That you born knowing that murder is wrong? If so, then explain the Mayans and other such cultures. Obviously it wasn't "wrong" to them.
 
phattonez said:
Because they violated the natural law.
Click to expand...

There is NO such thing as "natural" law, unless you are referring to instinctual behaviors. PEOPLE make laws. In the animal kingdom and in many primitive human tribes, it was NOT considered and is NOT considered wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc.
 
ChrisL said:
That doesn't not answer the question in any way. Again, what are "known truths"? Are you claiming that when you are born, your morals are already set and there for you? That you born knowing that murder is wrong? If so, then explain the Mayans and other such cultures. Obviously it wasn't "wrong" to them.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's look at an example like murder. Why is murder wrong? Let's look at it a different way, why is human life valuable? Why is it okay to kill animals but not humans? It is in the distinction between animals and humans. Humans can think and use reason, understand abstractions, and the like. All humans have this form that is distinct from animals, a soul if you like the term. The soul is what gives us value (dignity). Killing people is in effect denying their dignity, and hence it is inherently wrong.
 
phattonez said:
Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...

It's not input, it's truth and the people who claim there is some form of objective morality can never demonstrate how it came to be, how it can be objectively determined or anything else about it. It's just blind faith, based on wishful thinking.

Want to prove me wrong? Go for it. Prove, with evidence, where this supposedly objective morality comes from and how you know what it consists of.
 
ChrisL said:
There is NO such thing as "natural" law, unless you are referring to instinctual behaviors. PEOPLE make laws. In the animal kingdom and in many primitive human tribes, it was NOT considered and is NOT considered wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not referring to that. Up to the enlightenment, law was seen as a truth to be discovered, something that we were constantly aspiring to. With the enlightenment, law became confused with legislation. Thus the profound change in governments that try to do whatever they want rather than comporting to natural law.
 
Cephus said:
It's not input, it's truth and the people who claim there is some form of objective morality can never demonstrate how it came to be, how it can be objectively determined or anything else about it. It's just blind faith, based on wishful thinking.

Want to prove me wrong? Go for it. Prove, with evidence, where this supposedly objective morality comes from and how you know what it consists of.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you deny a priori reasoning, so what point is there arguing with such a person?
 
ChrisL said:
The Mayan people performed sacrifices on living human beings. They did this because it was culturally acceptable and an acceptable part of THEIR society, according to their morals and values. OUR morals and values are different.

In some cultures, murder is NOT wrong because morality is subjective. If you are raised in a society where sacrificing people is the norm, that is going to be the "norm" for you.

Ancient Rome was one of the MOST violent cultures. They killed and pillaged MANY times over. Why? Because it benefited them. Morals didn't play a role whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And in all cases these actions were wrong. Things are objectively wrong, with or without the support of the culture. Local culture has nothing to do with the inherent morality of actions.
 
phattonez said:
And in all cases these actions were wrong. Things are objectively wrong, with or without the support of the culture. Local culture has nothing to do with the inherent morality of actions.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If there is no one to punish you or tell you it is wrong, and the rest of your society practices it, then it is not wrong to you. Society in general determines what is wrong and what is acceptable behavior, and you are judging their actions by YOUR morality and what you have been taught.
 
phattonez said:
Okay, let's look at an example like murder. Why is murder wrong? Let's look at it a different way, why is human life valuable? Why is it okay to kill animals but not humans? It is in the distinction between animals and humans. Humans can think and use reason, understand abstractions, and the like. All humans have this form that is distinct from animals, a soul if you like the term. The soul is what gives us value (dignity). Killing people is in effect denying their dignity, and hence it is inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, in SOME cultures it is not wrong. In some cultures, women are NOT as valuable as men. I can think of dozens of other examples.
 
ChrisL said:
There is NO such thing as "natural" law, unless you are referring to instinctual behaviors. PEOPLE make laws. In the animal kingdom and in many primitive human tribes, it was NOT considered and is NOT considered wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc.
Click to expand...

Some people seem to think that natural law means that a unicorn or rabbit or some **** will jump out of the woods and stop someone from being murdered. That's not what natural law is, not even close. Natural law is a philosophical concept that you have the right to domain over your own body, which includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That can either be accomplished through your own self defense, or with the help of the state.

Natural law does exist, because it's a philosophy that the government doesn't define what I believe to be my rights as a human being. If they pass a law that says I don't have the right to say what I want, I will still believe that I have the right to say what I want. I have the right to the domain over my own body because I was born with it; it is the natural state of things.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Some people seem to think that natural law means that a unicorn or rabbit or some **** will jump out of the woods and stop someone from being murdered. That's not what natural law is, not even close. Natural law is a philosophical concept that you have the right to domain over your own body, which includes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That can either be accomplished through your own self defense, or with the help of the state.

Natural law does exist, because it's a philosophy that the government doesn't define what I believe to be my rights as a human being. If they pass a law that says I don't have the right to say what I want, I will still believe that I have the right to say what I want.
Click to expand...

In some cultures, there ARE no such rights.
 
phattonez said:
And in all cases these actions were wrong. Things are objectively wrong, with or without the support of the culture. Local culture has nothing to do with the inherent morality of actions.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does. You cannot say that the Mayans were "wrong" for sacrificing people, because that was an acceptable part of THEIR culture. Therefore it was NOT WRONG for them, according to THEIR morals.
 
Good Lord! Primitive tribes were known to rape, pillage and murder all the infirmed people that were no good to them, take all the women and healthy men and children and use them as slaves. This was commonplace. It wasn't "wrong" to them.
 
ChrisL said:
In some cultures, there ARE no such rights.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with culture, we're talking about a philosophical concept that was developed in the 17th century. It simply states that I have the right to do with my body what I wish, whether that be speak, move around, or simply live, until some outside entity uses force against me. It is the natural order of the universe.

You're showing over and over again that you actually have no idea what Natural Law is, because you keep filing it under the same category as human made laws, such as jaywalking prohibition.

ChrisL said:
Good Lord! Primitive tribes were known to rape, pillage and murder all the infirmed people that were no good to them, take all the women and healthy men and children and use them as slaves. This was commonplace. It wasn't "wrong" to them.
Click to expand...

And what the **** does that have to do with natural law? Could please for jesus sake read up on the concept before you go off and talk bull****?
 
ChrisL said:
It most certainly does. You cannot say that the Mayans were "wrong" for sacrificing people, because that was an acceptable part of THEIR culture. Therefore it was NOT WRONG for them, according to THEIR morals.
Click to expand...

Go back a few thousand years and everyone was sacrificing people. That doesn't make it right for any culture today.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It has nothing to do with culture, we're talking about a philosophical concept that was developed in the 17th century. It simply states that I have the right to do with my body what I wish, whether that be speak, move around, or simply live, until some outside entity uses force against me. It is the natural order of the universe.

You're showing over and over again that you actually have no idea what Natural Law is, because you keep filing it under the same category as human made laws, such as jaywalking prohibition.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about morality. Whether or not you are born with morals or whether they are developed in your culture.

Regardless, some cultures do not give people the right to do what they want with their own bodies. And throughout history, that is a fact as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom