What does existence of personal god(s) have to do with universal morals? Morality is social construct often based on religion. All the gods typically have their own set of morals and ofcourse religion worshipping them will advocate those morals. There are no universal morals or any ridiculous omnipotent beings, but I wouldn't say that there couldn't be god(s) somewhere out there.
>>1 = some emo-kid who needs a comfort fallacy to justify his laziness and lack of drive and does this by pretending to know something about nietzsche and feel superior and "unique" for acting like an asshole. It is in fact harder and takes more intelligence and wisdom to not act like an asshole. Some religious morals are stupid, but the world doesn't consist purely of supersitious moral religious mormons and amoral nihilist marxist anarchist atheists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 12:10
>>2 >>3 >>4 >>5 >>6
clearly the same person. >>1 is still an idiot though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 13:09
Euth: Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.
Soc: Ought we to enquire into the truth of this, Euthyphro, or simply to accept the mere statement on our own authority and that of others? What do you say?
Euth: We should enquire; and I believe that the statement will stand the test of enquiry.
Soc: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.
...
Soc: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro: is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?
Euth: Yes.
Soc: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?
Euth: No, that is the reason.
Soc: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?
Euth: Yes.
Soc: And that which is dear to the gods is loved by them, and is in a state to be loved of them because it is loved of them?
Euth: Certainly.
Soc: Then that which is dear to the gods, Euthyphro, is not holy, nor is that which is holy loved of God, as you affirm; but they are two different things.
Euth: How do you mean, Socrates?
Soc: I mean to say that the holy has been acknowledge by us to be loved of God because it is holy, not to be holy because it is loved.
Plato 1, you 0
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 13:16
Good, then lets all just eat each other and destroy the world. After all, it isn't wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 13:24
Columbine never happened.
9/11 never happened.
The Unabomber never existed.
There was no war in the 1940s.
I don't exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 13:57
>>9
Just leave the people who have teamed up to make the world a better place alone. Or we'll put you in prison.
Go to Mexico.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:05
>>11
Im merely satirizing the OP who believes that morals dont exist
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:07
You fucking morons, he was talking about moral relativism. Everything you've listed of course is bad when put in perspective of our culture, they were crimes against humanity. But on a universal standpoint, nothing gives a shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:15
>>13
on a universal standpoint nothing gives a shit about your opinion either. Since you've counted yourself out don't bother to respond.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:19
Ignore his opinion, it'll make it wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:50
I think the OP is right in the sense all of the possible morals and a personal god don't mix, its just too convenient.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 14:57
you know I've seen millions upon millions of people raging against moral relativism, decrying it as a source of lawlessness and materialism in our culture.
Sure, if moral relativism meant that. It doesn't, of course, but at least you tried.
Moral relativism only talks about differences in cultures. This argument says that because their are different morals between different cultures, there is no all encompassing moral philosophy between the entire human race that everyone ought to follow (the universal morality). This argument is flawed, as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because there are difference between peoples doesn't mean there isn't in fact an actual objective morality that people should follow. It would be like saying that because some people don't believe that the earth revolves around the sun, then the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. The difference with that and objective morality, though, is that the reality of it is still up in the air.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 15:16
>>18
But most of the moral relativists are liberals, and liberals are smart, while conservatives are supposedly not. So why would they espouse flawed belief systems?
They are not true moral relativists, they just want to promote acceptance of cultures different from ours, which is all well and good until the culture imposes certain practices like male supremacy, slavery, etc.
As much as we like equal rights and free speech, that is simply the agreed upon rule of our society. It is not "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong", it is simply "agreed upon".
In a different society, for example, the middle east, the "agreed upon" rule is male supremacy. That is not "good" or "evil", it is simply agreed upon. We do not agree with it, so we may use our power change what is "agreed upon" in that society.
AND THATS HOW MORAL RELATIVISM WORKS GUYS LOL
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 21:17
>>21
see, I can agree with that, but why didn't the OP just say something about Nihilism?
But how do you know it's really "agreed upon"? Do you really think most of the women there agreed to this? How do you know everyone is content with the rules? Is it ridiculous for me to think that a lot of middle eastern women don't really agree with male supremacy?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-20 21:32
>>23
actually they do agree with it, just see some hardcore christians in America, most of them believe,the woman also, that they belong in the home and the man is the ruler of the household
Name:
JH Ruisilieu Esquire the 8th2007-01-20 22:57
Moral relativism occurs because other cultures are inferior and do not have such advanced values as we do. Islam explicitly that it is ok to beat women and have sex with little boys, but that it is wrong to have sex with a woman before marriage and that the woman is to be stoned to death for this, not the man. If anyone says this culture should be considerred equal to mine I would have to assume they are threatenning me and make a citizen's arrest so they can be returned to durkadurkaland or where ever the inferior thing came from.
You can't really think you're speaking for all of them can you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-21 0:35
I think what the OP meant is that there is no definite set of morals that could apply to infinity, didn't really seem like he was implying that we should have none at all.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-22 0:51
>>25
I'm interested in your hateful and racist insights and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.