Taylork, Absolutes

[Asimov]

Taylor, I was enjoying our discussion in the Absolutes thread. I hope we can continue it on here.

 

First off, if you wish any clarifications, then please don't hesitate to ask.

 

But we do establish what constitutes an immoral killing. It's arbitrary (based on whims or desires) and it's the initiation of force. Both are irrational acts that cannot be condoned in any society. When everyone lives together for mutual benefit, murdering someone constitutes no gain in wealth or prosperity. Irrational selfishness has no place in a society.

 

This was my last reply to you in that thread that I think bears the brunt of objective morality and the establishments of absolute truth as it applies to that.

 

So, if you would like to reply to this, I would greatly enjoy continuing our discussion.

[Antlerman]

You're going to crap all over a thread I started and was enjoying with your rigid, dogmatic mind, driving everyone who was participating in it away because of your annoying manners towards others, then your do this when I close it due to the nonsense you turned it into?

 

Next time stay the hell out of any thread I start, and I'll afford you the same "respect". Better still, why don't you go to some other forum instead of pissing off ExChristians in a place for "Supporting ExChristians"? Why the hell are you here anyway?

[redross]

What's your problem deerman? Asimov made some great points in the absolutes thread and you turned into a juvenile and refused to seriously consider his arguments. If this thread is going to knot your panties too then stay the hell out; or continue posting, it's good for a laugh

[KT45]

Before I start I would like this to be openned to more people than me.

 

(Taylork45 @ Oct 4 2006, 07:00 AM)

 

Premise A: There are no absolutes concerning morals

Premise B: A is true (absolute statement)

Conclusion: A is doesn't contradict B, therefore true.

Granted this is a horrible proof that does nothing I'm just noting that just because statments can be absolute doesn't mean morals are.

I'm sorry, but what?

 

If a statement applies to morality, then it does.

No I don't agree. If I say "there are no absolute morals" and some and someone says "is this absolutely true?" then what the second question is asking is "is the prior statement absolute". If I answer the second question with a "yes" then I am not falling on my own logic because I am answering if he previous statement is absolute which it is. Just because there is a relationship between statement one and statement two means nothing. Just because absolutes exist doesn't mean absolute morals do.

 

Well as long as you define murder as immorally killing another human being then it is absolutely immoral by definition. There is no situation I will ever find where the immoral killing of a human being is not immoral because it is immoral. Can't really debate you on that one

 

 

Yes, that is an absolute, would you not agree?

Oh I do agree that it is absolute. But it is circular. Murder is immoral because it is immoral. It's kinda like saying God is real because he said he's real.

 

American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: The unlawful killing of another human being, especially with premeditated malice.

 

Since we are arguing an abstract quality and not just law as it applies to countries, unlawful would have to be equated with immoral

unlawful doesn't equal immoral. As you see it just creates problems with the definition because it is based on what you feel is immoral. I do not disagree tha your definition is absolute. I do disagree that your definition is correct. Every definition I see with murder is not absolute including the one you posted above because i can find situations when it is not immoral.

 

Do this for me. You may not agree with the suggestion but humor me. In your mind you know why you consider it justifiable to call murder an immoral act. Well write it down! Replace your definition so that in place of "immorality" you have you definition of why it is so. Don't put it is "unlawful" either because I would need a standard set of laws to go by. Get rid of the word immoral from your definition because that is NOT what the definition is. If you truely feel that murder is immoral then writing why you feel it constitutes as immoral won't be hard. Make it air tight as possible so that it does include a society, that it does include initiated force, and so that it perfectly draws the line between killing and murder. Even though I'm sure your definition won't match any real definition of murder I will try to dismantle your definition by finding at least one situation where it not immoral to follow your definition, thereby showing the act is not absolute.

[webmdave]

Reminder:

This section of the site is for more serious debate with Christians. Although this section is not as formal as "The Arena," all posts should remain "on topic" at all times.

 

If a topic degenerates and wanders away from the topic, as frequently happens when people disagree, the entire topic may be moved to "The Lion's Den," closed, or deleted altogether. Offending posters may even receive warnings.

 

The point of this section is for those members who would like to see and participate in informal, yet serious, debate.

 

However, this entire site only exists for one reason -- to provide a forum to encourage those who have already left, are in the process of leaving, or are considering leaving Christianity.

 

The key word in the above sentence is "encouraging," and the expected object of the encourgement is ex-Christians.

 

Note: Those who believe this site should have some other emphasis are invited to frequent some other site.

 

This topic is closed.