Absolute Moral Values

[Baniboy 3]

Okay, this kinda started in the shoutbo - I mean the chatroom. But, I want to talk about the source of moral values...So let's get started, I think that the basis of the moral values comes from biological drives. So simply we do what advantages us. Maybe not always consciously, but usually yes.The rest, the decisions we make are based on the norms that are dictated by our environment.I also believe that people NEED an absolute standpoint to be able to decide things, and they do, even if they don't admit it.So, as for declaring something right or wrong, we can't declare something wrong or right because we aren't in a neutral standpoint. I challenge you to give me an example case where you can factually prove right or wrong.Reply, and we can discuss this further, I have no time to continue this muc...

[kobra500 1]

My stance as I was telling Baniboy in the chatroom is fairly similar but has a few key differences.

Now like Baniboy I don't believe in moral absolutes, I believe that the concept of right and wrong however, is within all of us biologically, even babies LINK, and these were placed in through evolutionary conditioning, much in the way of instincts where animals can find their way to a place they've never been before or not been since they hatched, turtles for example are like this. I would say that as we have evolved into a society based species relying very much on a society and authority figures the society is the key thing in deciding right or wrong, things that help a society therefore, are right and those things that are detrimental to the society are wrong such that there is a clear basis for right or wrong and such that the words are in fact interchangeable, saying something is detrimental to society is the same as saying it is wrong. I believe that laws are very much a collective opinion of what is good for society and what is bad which are generally held for the majority at large. Of course ideas can be influenced by outside sources which have been passed down through things such as religion which are people own individual and often unjustified biases and these have an effect on what is considered right and wrong but these are usually indoctrinated into people from birth, essentially overriding the opinions they would otherwise take having looked at the evidence so much so sometimes that they are immune to changing opinion. An action can be innately right or wrong in general terms but obviously there are exceptions such murder is okay in self defence, but killing a killer actually benefits a society and is not detrimental, meanwhile killing an innocent is detrimental.

The following is an example of how what benefits a society ultimately wins out but also where people biases come into it but also how biases change what people interpret to be right or wrong but there is an overall answer to whether something is right or wrong.
Now Gay Marriage, let's analyse the arguments.

All animals of which we are one almost without exception have shown homosexual behaviour in the wild therefore it IS natural.
Homosexuality is shown by studies and evidence to in fact be biological and not in fact a choice. (you are born like it most of the time)
It doesn't negatively impact anyone at all in anyway.
Gay couples are the same as straight couples and both sets love each other in the same way.
it's unfair for straight couples to have more rights than gay couples.

Now let's look at the arguments against

Some peoples personal biases mean they rather have something against Gay marriage because their Holy text says so or because their parents told them it is wrong
If anyone can think of more let me know.

As you can see the positive outweigh the negative and the positives are backing in statistics and peer reviewed studies, where the against is almost entirely religious and are entirely formed out of preconceived bias and cannot explain how it will negatively affect society which I have discussed is the key to whether or not something is right or wrong. Except maybe God's wrath but again there is no evidence outside of scripture.

It is definitely beneficial as people who are gay can enter into wedlock and are not alienated as being lesser than straight people and lets face it, everybody loves a wedding!

and yes I've been harsh on religion here but really, what religion has to say on what is right or wrong is irrespective of what is right or wrong in my opinion. since I am basing Morals on society and not on a holy book written by fallible human hands.

[truefusion 3]

Things can be right and wrong, that is, proper and improper, better or not, without morals. Good and bad may be a different story, but even the words ''good'' and ''bad'' are used loosely, to even mean different things (e.g. ''that song was good''?''good'' here could be synonymous for ''entertaining''). But for this discussion i'll try to assume that the words ''good'' and ''bad'' are not used loosely.

 

Absolutes are, of course, the best way to determine or conclude a matter, for there is nothing greater than an absolute. I have no idea what you mean by factually proving right and wrong, but consider the following: ''Absolute morals'' are those that have absolute consequences to them. ''Absolute consequences'' are consequences that are not avoidable, consequences that are also the highest consequence when all plausible consequences are stacked. These consequences can be either desirable or undesirable. ''Demoralization'' is anything that deviates from properly ''dictating'' what is moral. Demoralization, therefore, occures when one improperly stackes, so to speak, plausible consequences and hence forms a ''moral conclusion.'' I'll use kobra500's example on homosexuality, as it is an example of what has been deemed ''demoralization.''

 

Except perhaps for the starting premise, kobra500 does not mention anything that itself implies a consequence, though i can't really say he formed any conclusion from the premises. The starting premise implies a consequence because it involves action: the animals have shown signs of homosexuality; there can't be a consequence without action. Although, he doesn't really consider why they show signs of homosexuality?for it would only ruin any argument based on it that seeks to support homosexuality. However, i would indeed like to see these studies on the supposed ''gay gene,'' for i have never seen a creature that is barely capable of making decisions on its own, let alone perhaps not even conscious of its own existence, commit homosexual acts. The third premise touches on consequences and it is what makes this suitable for ''demoralization.''

 

The proper way to start the argument is to start from actions: it needs to answer whether or not homosexuality is morally right or wrong. In other words, one should assume the question ''Is homosexuality morally right or wrong?'' is hanging above your head or is the title of your argument. Notice this does not need to involve marriage, as marriage is separate from homosexuality. Therefore marriage is irrelevant when determining whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. But what does homosexuality imply? What consequences does it imply?

 

Homosexuality implies lack of production on its own; it is incapble of producing young on its own. This is an absolute consequence of homosexuality. Creatures were designed to produce and multiply, and so homosexuality deviates from the natural?which implies that it is impossible to be born gay. Such a natural production brings joy and other positive feelings to the now family which would otherwise not have been present with homosexuality. Such a natural production is required for any such joy to be present and for any advancement of the race. It follows, therefore, that homosexuality does not benefit over heterosexuality and can be deemed morally wrong. If anyone were to now bring in gay marriage, the situation can in turn be easily dropped as the very fact that homosexuality being morally wrong would dictate whether or not gay marriage should be. The lie that homosexuals lack marital rights or not being able to be happy in heterosexuality would be irrelevant.

[anwiii 17]

Homosexuality implies lack of production on its own; it is incapble of producing young on its own. This is an absolute consequence of homosexuality. Creatures were designed to produce and multiply, and so homosexuality deviates from the naturalwhich implies that it is impossible to be born gay. Such a natural production brings joy and other positive feelings to the now family which would otherwise not have been present with homosexuality. Such a natural production is required for any such joy to be present and for any advancement of the race. It follows, therefore, that homosexuality does not benefit over heterosexuality and can be deemed morally wrong. If anyone were to now bring in gay marriage, the situation can in turn be easily dropped as the very fact that homosexuality being morally wrong would dictate whether or not gay marriage should be. The lie that homosexuals lack marital rights or not being able to be happy in heterosexuality would be irrelevant.

your assumptions and conclusions are mind boggling sometimes. i can use your theory and the belief in god and the bible and easily conclude that it's not in someones nature when they are born to end up not believing in something that other people say exist. therefore, why on earth would the bible preachers say everyone will be damned if they don't believe if in fact it is not in someone's nature to do so. but you know what? your basis to your conclusions are full of it. just like my example.

if there is one thing i know about nature is that we are all the same and we are all different at the same time so there is no right or wrong. there just IS. and personally, it's not up to you to define what nature is. there is a truth though so maybe that is what you are talking about and not so much "nature". sure, having sex and reproducing is natural. we wouldn't have the "equipment" to do so if it wasn't. on the other hand, if we do the opposite, does that mean it's unnatural? ofcourse not because what i also know about nature is that nature has a balance to it. life isn't perfect in everyone's eyes nor was it meant to be. in fact, there are many so called "imperfections" such as a person who is born without their arms or legs......or god forbid reproduction organs where it is so natural to reproduce as you say. this person without reproduction organs would have no purpose in life. that is just absurd to compare nature and "straight" people the way you do.

nothing at all implies that it is unatural to be born gay except in a homophobic mind set that has no objectivity where it would be impossible to see further than ones own hand or what was written centuries ago in some book. i like to refer to those people as followers or people who were taught a certain way and has no original basis to their opinions since in fact it's not their opinion but someone elses. followers just along for the ride who are afraid to even create an original thought. i have traveled many places and they are everywhere. but hey, i applaud them because at least they believe in SOMETHING even if it's not theirs to believe in.

when you get right down to it, the only thing that is natural is life itself. like i said, there is no right or wrong, but we need "right" and "wrong". we need to search for that truth and take our stand which would dictate right or wrong for our own selves......NOT for someone else. to dictate right or wrong for someone else is to say they should be no different than you when in fact, i think everyone will agree we are all born different.....and the same(which isn't a part of this discussion) at the same time. it's the differences in people that make us stronger and better people. it's our differences that allow us to make mistakes and learn from them. but to have an opinion about nature where everyone should be the same is just ridiculous thinking and there is absolutely NOTHING that implies that homosexuality is unnatural. just like someone who is born without the chance to ever reproduce is an unnatural human being. what you are ultimately saying is that if i had a penis and no sperm, i shouldn't even be allowed to have sex. not to mention all those ways we have tried to limit those natural occurances of conception due to birth control. is that unnatural too? to me, your way of thinking is primative.

bani- right and wrong is an illusion. there is only "right". also, you can't have "right" without being right and wrong at the same time. every action, every choice, every thought has a consequence. there are pros and cons to everything in life. if we end up being right the first time, great, but there will always be a sacrifice to the right which would dictate something wrong in other peoples eyes. but if we end up being wrong, we are still "right" because we learn from those things that were wrong which eventually makes us stronger and better people. i wouldn't call this proof by any means. the proof can't be taught or shown.....but it's still there to be seen for those who open their eyes to it.

[Baniboy 3]

Hmmm... this is getting interesting. I knew this would lure truefusion to reply! :DSo, kobra. That is subjective. Animals hold premature "morals", yes. BUT that is based on their biological drive. So, they don't "know" right from wrong, but they choose the one that is most beneficial to them . And you can't tell me why the choice that is beneficial is the right thing to do, because that'll be traced back to its reason. So, there's only right/wrong when it depends on a goal. The goal to succeed is biologically programmed in us. We get high on accomplishments . We are the product. The product is designed to accomplish certain things. The choices we make are based on what we want to accomplish. Therefor, morals are relative. For example let's take this argument:Child rape is wrongWhy? Other than the fact that you wouldn't like it to be done to you (which wouldn't be a valid argument anyway), you can say that it messes up the child's development, but that is yet again relative.Yet again no sight of an absolute wrong or right. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish or what you don't. As already proven by truefusion, if the goal is to reproduce, everything preventing it is wrong, you shouldn't kick your friend in the nuts, and yes you should be able to reproduce, anwiii. BUT, taking it a little step further, over-reproduction leads to overpopulation, which causes population collapse. If the goal is still to keep a stable population, then maybe it wouldn't be that bad if you kicked your friend in the nuts. Just an example folks. But the point lies here; why is keeping a stable population the right thing to do? Because of your own selfish self tells you to.I would also like to comment on the homosexuality thing, that if homosexuals are born that way (I'm not saying they aren't), then it should show up in the DNA. And even if it was a result of the environment, that is how they are. I personally believe that most variation in human behavior is caused by the environment. Our body reacts to the environment, making us what we are.TF doesn't know this because he wasn't in the chatroom when we were discussing the matter, BUT, it started out when we were talking about the influence of the environment on child's moral values.To be able to make the "right choice", you have to have directions. Human mind just doesn't work otherwise (sorry to disappoint). Now that is a mix of assumptions and straight rules and norms, that is the first part. Most decisions are based on this, why? The easiest way. When you have the directions written for you, you don't have to stop to think why something is wrong or right. Then there's the other part by which we decide, that is selfish. Neutral decision-making is impossible. Because everything has consequences, and those consequences are divided to "beneficial-to-me" and the opposite. You don't stop to think what is beneficial to others, otherwise you wouldn't be able to decide anything, would you? You have to face the fact that people consider the first part objective, independent of everything, although it's based on the second part, but without the 'rational' thought in it. Then they make these silly exception rules when their norms can't keep up with the situation. Like killing is okay, if you're defending yourself. That's not a neutral standpoint now, is it?Truefusion, by factual proving I meant if somebody could show me something that is always wrong, and the 'wrongness' is independent of our own selves. My wording was a little weird tho, I have to admit. I think I was high on feeling very fantastic yesterday with the school ending and all. ?Keep it up, guys!

[kobra500 1]

Actually the fact that Homosexual couples can't have children is a non-issue, our population is so high that lowering the number of people who actually have children turns out to be good and not bad to society. Moral absolutes don't exist in any innate way like you think they do, no action is wrong for the sheer fact it is wrong, you are right it is based on consequences, I will admit that within a society there are rules and laws which if everybody were to follow it would be good. But let's look at do not steal.Do not steal is a pretty good law, stealing anything is usually a bad Idea as it negatively affects the person you steal from.Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family morally is acceptable, and yes it negatively affects the baker by lowering his profits but it saves a families life. Truefusion how does homosexuality affect society, as I discussed their are consequences, and those consequences is the effect it has on society. In fact scrap that how does it affect you personally? I'm not asking how it affects your holy book, I know for a fact in the same chapter it tells you not to eat shellfish but think about it from a secular viewpoint, What your holy book says shouldn't and doesn't mean anything to a society like your own, in fact disallowing homosexuality on the basis of religion is unconstitutional, and outside of religion and moral absolutes what real negative to homosexuality is there. I'm not just bashing your religion but it seems religion in general and that's all homophobic religions are the only thing standing in the way of this.As I said above, I didn't really mention much about consequences and as I said in this text consequences weren't mentioned by word, the consequences are effects that it has. I also believe that children with exception if brought up with a relatively unbias education who are taught the facts will mostly make the correct decision in life, namely choose to go for the one that is beneficial to society.

Edited June 6, 2010 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

your assumptions and conclusions are mind boggling sometimes. i can use your theory and the belief in god and the bible and easily conclude that it's not in someones nature when they are born to end up not believing in something that other people say exist. therefore, why on earth would the bible preachers say everyone will be damned if they don't believe if in fact it is not in someone's nature to do so. but you know what? your basis to your conclusions are full of it. just like my example.

 

if there is one thing i know about nature is that we are all the same and we are all different at the same time so there is no right or wrong. there just IS. and personally, it's not up to you to define what nature is. there is a truth though so maybe that is what you are talking about and not so much ''nature''. sure, having sex and reproducing is natural. we wouldn't have the ''equipment'' to do so if it wasn't. on the other hand, if we do the opposite, does that mean it's unnatural? ofcourse not because what i also know about nature is that nature has a balance to it. life isn't perfect in everyone's eyes nor was it meant to be. in fact, there are many so called ''imperfections'' such as a person who is born without their arms or legs......or god forbid reproduction organs where it is so natural to reproduce as you say. this person without reproduction organs would have no purpose in life. that is just absurd to compare nature and ''straight'' people the way you do.

 

nothing at all implies that it is unatural to be born gay except in a homophobic mind set that has no objectivity where it would be impossible to see further than ones own hand or what was written centuries ago in some book. i like to refer to those people as followers or people who were taught a certain way and has no original basis to their opinions since in fact it's not their opinion but someone elses. followers just along for the ride who are afraid to even create an original thought. i have traveled many places and they are everywhere. but hey, i applaud them because at least they believe in SOMETHING even if it's not theirs to believe in.

 

when you get right down to it, the only thing that is natural is life itself. like i said, there is no right or wrong, but we need ''right'' and ''wrong''. we need to search for that truth and take our stand which would dictate right or wrong for our own selves......NOT for someone else. to dictate right or wrong for someone else is to say they should be no different than you when in fact, i think everyone will agree we are all born different.....and the same(which isn't a part of this discussion) at the same time. it's the differences in people that make us stronger and better people. it's our differences that allow us to make mistakes and learn from them. but to have an opinion about nature where everyone should be the same is just ridiculous thinking and there is absolutely NOTHING that implies that homosexuality is unnatural. just like someone who is born without the chance to ever reproduce is an unnatural human being. what you are ultimately saying is that if i had a penis and no sperm, i shouldn't even be allowed to have sex. not to mention all those ways we have tried to limit those natural occurances of conception due to birth control. is that unnatural too? to me, your way of thinking is primative.

Back then people had less distractions and so had more time to think about things, about existence and life. The lack of lights in the city, if there even was a city, allowed for a full view of the vast array of stars in the night. We are designed with a mind that is fully capable of advanced thought and to make use of it. If anyone were to ever forget about God, they could simply contemplate all that is around them and naturally form the conclusion.

 

People are damned by their own sins, of which through God's plan, which requires the person to believe, can they only be saved from eternal damnation. Hence why preachers quote Scripture.

 

Tell me, why do you agree bearing a physical sex type is natural? Because logic is natural, it is part of the person. It is undoubtedly so that a person can only be born either male or female. But, then, why do you contradict yourself and say that it is impossible for anyone to state what is natural except for the person who is trying to figure things out? Such a paradox cannot be true. For surely truth dictates itself, and so the natural dictates itself to which we merely point out (assuming we do so accurately). If we do something that contradicts our nature, then it is indeed unnatural, for the very word ''unnatural'' is a reference of such actions.

 

It is true that a person without reproductive organs would not be capable of reproduction, but that would be the only purpose they would lack; it does not deprive them of everything. A person without legs or arms? Neither are without purpose, though it may be the case that they would not be able to do certain things due to their handicap.

 

When you put together the pieces of a puzzle do you willingly place the pieces where they do not go? Why then do you say that homosexuality is acceptably natural? The structural design was not designed to be so.

 

Tell me, how can someone argue for someone else's ''opinion'' if they are merely blindly following it? Wouldn't such require a lot of thought? How then can you state that we have no basis for our ''opinions''? And do you think homosexuality is a new thought, a new thing? It has been around for over 4000 years. If any originality in thought could be accomplished between the two, then heterosexuality would be victor, for it came first—it is the original specification of every species that has a male and female type.

 

If the ''truth'' which you speak of can only dictate truth for the one person, then it cannot be called truth. You might as well, then, state that truth does not exist.

 

It is not unnatural for a person without the ability to produce sperm to have sex. But i don't think it can be said that imperfections at birth are unnatural. For the body requires a significant amount of resources to produce a complete child. But birth control is unnatural if external methods are used—though i don't think birth control can be an internal thing.

 

So, kobra. That is subjective. Animals hold premature ''morals'', yes. BUT that is based on their biological drive. So, they don't ''know'' right from wrong, but they choose the one that is most beneficial to them . And you can't tell me why the choice that is beneficial is the right thing to do, because that'll be traced back to its reason. So, there's only right/wrong when it depends on a goal. The goal to succeed is biologically programmed in us. We get high on accomplishments . We are the product. The product is designed to accomplish certain things. The choices we make are based on what we want to accomplish. Therefor, morals are relative. For example let's take this argument:

 

Child rape is wrong

Why? Other than the fact that you wouldn't like it to be done to you (which wouldn't be a valid argument anyway), you can say that it messes up the child's development, but that is yet again relative.

 

Yet again no sight of an absolute wrong or right. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish or what you don't. As already proven by truefusion, if the goal is to reproduce, everything preventing it is wrong, you shouldn't kick your friend in the nuts, and yes you should be able to reproduce, anwiii. BUT, taking it a little step further, over-reproduction leads to overpopulation, which causes population collapse. If the goal is still to keep a stable population, then maybe it wouldn't be that bad if you kicked your friend in the nuts. Just an example folks. But the point lies here; why is keeping a stable population the right thing to do? Because of your own selfish self tells you to.

 

I would also like to comment on the homosexuality thing, that if homosexuals are born that way (I'm not saying they aren't), then it should show up in the DNA. And even if it was a result of the environment, that is how they are. I personally believe that most variation in human behavior is caused by the environment. Our body reacts to the environment, making us what we are.

 

TF doesn't know this because he wasn't in the chatroom when we were discussing the matter, BUT, it started out when we were talking about the influence of the environment on child's moral values.

To be able to make the ''right choice'', you have to have directions. Human mind just doesn't work otherwise (sorry to disappoint). Now that is a mix of assumptions and straight rules and norms, that is the first part. Most decisions are based on this, why? The easiest way. When you have the directions written for you, you don't have to stop to think why something is wrong or right. Then there's the other part by which we decide, that is selfish. Neutral decision-making is impossible. Because everything has consequences, and those consequences are divided to ''beneficial-to-me'' and the opposite. You don't stop to think what is beneficial to others, otherwise you wouldn't be able to decide anything, would you? You have to face the fact that people consider the first part objective, independent of everything, although it's based on the second part, but without the 'rational' thought in it. Then they make these silly exception rules when their norms can't keep up with the situation. Like killing is okay, if you're defending yourself. That's not a neutral standpoint now, is it?

 

Truefusion, by factual proving I meant if somebody could show me something that is always wrong, and the 'wrongness' is independent of our own selves. My wording was a little weird tho, I have to admit. I think I was high on feeling very fantastic yesterday with the school ending and all. Keep it up, guys!

 

True, what may be deemed beneficial to the creature may be, in actuality, selfish, and hence not morally right. But any goal is separate of the moral. You give the example of child rape. What is our goal there? You don't seem to explicitly state one, though it is obvious the goal of the rapist. Shall we assume it is to prevent some form of child abuse for the one who is against child abuse (like one would expect)? So what if we state that as one of our reasons for trying to prevent child abuse is due to the fact that child abuse causes unbeneficial and painful structural modification to the child? Would me wanting to prevent child abuse mean that the child will have unbeneficial and painful structural modification, and that if i do not try to prevent it, that the child will not have unbeneficial and painful structural modification? Right and wrong deal with action, sure, but there need not be an act in progress for a moral to exist.

 

Concerning us, i wouldn't say our bodies change according to our environments, shaping us to what we are, especially if this concerns something metaphysical. If we can only become ''ourselves'' after the external molding, then why weren't we ''ourselves'' before then? Isn't it the case that our original self is truly us? For how can we be ourselves if we are being molded by something externally? We would not be ourselves but whatever the wishes of the external force would have us be.

 

Perhaps we need to make clear what selfishness is before we continue using the word loosely. What is selfishness? Isn't it where one person gains the most benefit when things are subject to himself? If someone does something that benefits people equally, can it be called selfish? Let us come back to the child rape scenario. My goal, for example, is to prevent child rape, something i want to accomplish. And so when accomplishing it, i find satisfaction. But is this selfish? Who gains more, me or any child i prevent from getting abused? Can you truly tell me, then, that all acts, therefore, are selfish? If so, then i would have to ask you what you call ''selfishness.'' It is not impossible to stop and think what is best for the other; in fact, i'm pretty sure that is something that occurs with most parents.

 

Concerning overpopulation: The earth is fully capable of supporting the population; the people just need to know the meaning of moderation. The lack of moderation implies selfishness. Perhaps one of the reasons for fasting is in support of moderation. Overpopulation, therefore, is not morally wrong, nor merely wrong.

 

By the way, Baniboy, tell me a truth that isn't dependent on reality.

 

Actually the fact that Homosexual couples can't have children is a non-issue, our population is so high that lowering the number of people who actually have children turns out to be good and not bad to society. Moral absolutes don't exist in any innate way like you think they do, no action is wrong for the sheer fact it is wrong, you are right it is based on consequences, I will admit that within a society there are rules and laws which if everybody were to follow it would be good. But let's look at do not steal.

 

Do not steal is a pretty good law, stealing anything is usually a bad Idea as it negatively affects the person you steal from.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family morally is acceptable, and yes it negatively affects the baker by lowering his profits but it saves a families life.

 

Truefusion how does homosexuality affect society, as I discussed their are consequences, and those consequences is the effect it has on society. In fact scrap that how does it affect you personally? I'm not asking how it affects your holy book, I know for a fact in the same chapter it tells you not to eat shellfish but think about it from a secular viewpoint, What your holy book says shouldn't and doesn't mean anything to a society like your own, in fact disallowing homosexuality on the basis of religion is unconstitutional, and outside of religion and moral absolutes what real negative to homosexuality is there. I'm not just bashing your religion but it seems religion in general and that's all homophobic religions are the only thing standing in the way of this.

 

As I said above, I didn't really mention much about consequences and as I said in this text consequences weren't mentioned by word, the consequences are effects that it has. I also believe that children with exception if brought up with a relatively unbias education who are taught the facts will mostly make the correct decision in life, namely choose to go for the one that is beneficial to society.

 

As stated in response to Baniboy, overpopulation is not a problem (though, for that reason, it wouldn't be called ''overpopulation''). Concerning your attempt to prove that there is no such thing as (absolute) morality: People allowing the person to steal to just feed themselves or their family does not negate the moral any more than doing something immoral does. And would it not be the case that the very people who would turn a blind eye to the thief would be more than willing to provide food to the so-called thief if the so-called thief were to simply ask for it? Would not this way offer the most benefit? A person gets paid for offering their food services (which helps maintain the business for others and helps support the workers), the consumer feels good for helping someone in need, and the what-would-have-been-a-theif can now feed himself and or his family.

 

How would homosexuality affect me? Any decision by another person can affect me directly or indirectly, especially if this person has the power to cause change on a great scale. Homosexuality itself is a deviation from what is proper and natural, and therefore a pattern of its own. Like any pattern you can find a variation of it in other things. In other words, you can only expect further deviation from other things which seeks to maintain balance.

 

Unconstitutional? Excuse me while i hold back all the sarcastic remarks that have just popped into my head. () But it really is amazing that merely stating something that is found within a religion automatically causes that to be unconstitutional. Let us not forget that many of the laws within the constitution are found within many religions. Let us also not forget that the Declaration of Independence of the United States mentions that it is obvious that a personal God, Creator, exists. Yet, it is not surprising to hear that unbelievers think that we believers are incapable of being human and are mere robots. Tell me, in what way does it follow that everyone who is against homosexuality is in fact doing so because of their religion?

[mahesh2k 0]

People are damned by their own sins, of which through God's plan, which requires the person to believe, can they only be saved from eternal damnation. Hence why preachers quote Scripture.

How do you know god's plan ? let me guess with help of bible and it's random interpretation which people try to suit as per current trends. Sorry, No thanks. If god explained all his plans can you quote a verse from bible where it's explained that there is life in the universe other than this solar system as well. Bible explained anything about synthetic life and LHC experiment which god planned to do it from humans as per his plans ? oh wait, science is satan's plan ?stories and manipulated interpretation from bible yeah that's what we can do. Preachers quote scripture in order to keep people in belief, there is a lot of money that can be made by keeping people in belief be it under the name of charity or directly by preaching via television and public programs. like it or not that's truth.

[truefusion 3]

How do you know god's plan ? let me guess with help of bible and it's random interpretation which people try to suit as per current trends. Sorry, No thanks. If god explained all his plans can you quote a verse from bible where it's explained that there is life in the universe other than this solar system as well. Bible explained anything about synthetic life and LHC experiment which god planned to do it from humans as per his plans ? oh wait, science is satan's plan ?stories and manipulated interpretation from bible yeah that's what we can do. Preachers quote scripture in order to keep people in belief, there is a lot of money that can be made by keeping people in belief be it under the name of charity or directly by preaching via television and public programs. like it or not that's truth.

Truth has proof, of which you have provided none. The Bible only concerns life on this planet and the spiritual realm, for that is all that is required; it doesn't touch on anything that doesn't relate to us, for there is no need. Synthetic life and LHC experiment is irrelevant to God's existence, so in what way should i care about those things concerning God's existence? Because you mention them? Sarcastic propaganda is not the way to have a meaningful conversation. The Bible is merely a written record of things that have occurred in the past which includes mention of God's plans. There is enough knowledge in that Book to guide the reader towards the way of God's existence, away from the distractions of today that could have otherwise prevented them. God's plan written therein is mentioned explicitly; it is not implied. There is no ''random interpretation'' applied to it. One need only contemplate on life to naturally conclude that there is a God.

[sukhi 2]

Truth has proof, of which you have provided none. The Bible only concerns life on this planet and the spiritual realm, for that is all that is required; it doesn't touch on anything that doesn't relate to us, for there is no need. Synthetic life and LHC experiment is irrelevant to God's existence, so in what way should i care about those things concerning God's existence? Because you mention them? Sarcastic propaganda is not the way to have a meaningful conversation. The Bible is merely a written record of things that have occurred in the past which includes mention of God's plans. There is enough knowledge in that Book to guide the reader towards the way of God's existence, away from the distractions of today that could have otherwise prevented them. God's plan written therein is mentioned explicitly; it is not implied. There is no ''random interpretation'' applied to it. One need only contemplate on life to naturally conclude that there is a God.

Have you read the Bhagavat gita ?
Bible and Quran are so childish to be considered as the book divine.
Infact everyhting is divine according to Vedantic thought process but
having the main book on history /commands of God rather than the logic
of God's mind is just too childish !!

[chini13 11]

I think the topic starts with How can moral values be developed..from where do we learn what is good or bad for the human being.......I think all the religious books presents stories in order to frame our minds about the goods and the bads.Good is something which does not harm the natural beings and the bad is something which destroys it .All the cultures, society, religion, nations, family together form a notion which become a moral value.I come from a family where killing a animal is considered immoral, we are vegetarians, no one smoke, no one drinks alcohol.Now these all things happen in the world and are not considered immoral by some.Religions we follow are based on our personal suitability.and how many of us do follow all that is written in the religious books..I guess not many.We are selective in following the rules..and make our own personal values and moral values as we grow as per our own personal experience

[anwiii 17]

People are damned by their own sins, of which through God's plan, which requires the person to believe, can they only be saved from eternal damnation. Hence why preachers quote Scripture.

preachers quote from the bible because it's the foundation of their beliefs and without it, don't know any better. they also quote from the bible to get people to convert to the same way of thinking

why do you contradict yourself and say that it is impossible for anyone to state what is natural except for the person who is trying to figure things out?

i never contradicted myself. i knew exactly what i was saying when i wrote what i did. i fail to see the truth in what you think i said, but thanks for the play on words. i dare you to quote me in what you think i said.

When you put together the pieces of a puzzle do you willingly place the pieces where they do not go? Why then do you say that homosexuality is acceptably natural? The structural design was not designed to be so.

i always place pieces of the puzzle willingly in places where they don't go when i am trying to figure something out. sometimes it takes 100 wrong answers to reach the right answer. i am at least wise enough to admit that i am not right all the time. life is a mystery. it probably always will be. it's what makes it so great for those who study it because there is a wealth of knowledge to be learned. things that can only be learned from experience. not what you read in a book(the bible).

How then can you state that we have no basis for our ''opinions''?

again, a play on my words. it seems you always like to twist peoples words because you have no comprehension of what other people are trying to say. what you pointed out was not your opinion, true fusion. it is a fact in your eyes. you were comparing homosexuality with someone that goes against nature or in other words, you were basically stating that any homosexual act is unnatural. in order for you to claim this as a fact without quoting anything you read, you would have to define what nature is. you have yet to do this. only to make blanket statements and claim them as fact. if it was only your opinion, you would have stated it as such. you did not.....because you believe what you read in a book.

If the ''truth'' which you speak of can only dictate truth for the one person, then it cannot be called truth. You might as well, then, state that truth does not exist.

there are many truths, bud....many pieces to life's puzzle. you can't know the whole truth however just by knowing 3-4 pieces of the puzzle. that's like trying to figure out 1+1+?=2+?. oh. you can assume.....sure....you can make things up all day long. what i do know is that our lives aren't just based on those who lived 2k+ years ago. to only take their experiences discredits our own experiences we live with today. i mean....come on....if life's answers are in this one book, why we born to live and die? it's becuase all the answers aren't in the book. the book you refer to is just a piece of the many pieces of a puzzle.

It is not unnatural for a person without the ability to produce sperm to have sex.

now who is being contradictory? i think everyone is in agreement that it is natural to have sex and reproduce. but does it mean that any other sexual act is unnatural? no. you say yes. sodomy is just one example of a sexual act that ensures no reproduction. one of many....kissing is a sexual act but i don't hear you speaking out against that even though you can't reproduce through kissing.....or even touching. i mean, the logic you are using would dictate that the tongue should only be used for talking and tasting and maybe extracting that bit of food that is lodged between your teeth. not to be used to touch or play with another tongue. under your defination, that would be unnatural. more of a self satisfaction act than a natural one? like two guys engaging in sodomy?

Right and wrong deal with action, sure, but there need not be an act in progress for a moral to exist.

it's really easy to miss my point without carefully studying and knowing what nature is all about. morals are relative to an individual. laws are created to speak for the majority of people but it doesn't make the laws right or wrong. sometimes morals can limit someones thinking to be objective....objective enough to see past ones own beliefs....

Isn't it the case that our original self is truly us? For how can we be ourselves if we are being molded by something externally? We would not be ourselves but whatever the wishes of the external force would have us be.

we agree on something. we are born a certain way without outside influences. it's the outside influences however that continue to mold us and the experiences we experience through out life that make us better people(hopefully) and will eventually die with more knowledge than when we came in to the world. our soul becomes more complete through life's process. it is of my opinion that is is what reincarnation is all about and it would be counter productive to live the same life over and over again with the same experiences.

Perhaps we need to make clear what selfishness is before we continue using the word loosely. What is selfishness? Isn't it where one person gains the most benefit when things are subject to himself? If someone does something that benefits people equally, can it be called selfish?

make no mistake about it. ever choice we make is a selfish act based on who were are and our personal definitions of right and wrong. when i talk about selfishness though, i am talking about the understanding of life and nature combined. people taking the easy road for short term success rather than travel the hard road for long term success. but if we are going to have to define selfishness, i guess we have to define success and all the other words you have trouble understanding. it is not my role to take you by the hand and tutor you like a child. i am sure you can figure some things out your own self. if you can't, then you have a lot more to learn....don't you...

Concerning overpopulation: The earth is fully capable of supporting the population; the people just need to know the meaning of moderation. The lack of moderation implies selfishness. Perhaps one of the reasons for fasting is in support of moderation. Overpopulation, therefore, is not morally wrong, nor merely wrong.

How would homosexuality affect me? Any decision by another person can affect me directly or indirectly, especially if this person has the power to cause change on a great scale. Homosexuality itself is a deviation from what is proper and natural, and therefore a pattern of its own. Like any pattern you can find a variation of it in other things. In other words, you can only expect further deviation from other things which seeks to maintain balance.

there you go trying to define nature and define homosexuals as a deviation of what is proper. maybe your thinking is improper. ever think of that? if not, then i would have to assume that all your thoughts are proper, natural, and perfect. only a fool would claim that. oh....but we aren't talking about you since everything that your made up of comes from a book. so much for having an original thought come out of ya.

you know truefusion, you talk about the past and and compare it to all the distractions you see today as if there weren't any distractions in the past. how can you even talk about the past if you never lived it? sure there are distractions today that weren't present in the past. did it ever occur to you that there were distractions in the past that aren't present today? you talk about the night sky. how often do you look at it? you also talk about the night sky like it's the only important part of nature. it's the only example you gave so i am assuming it's one of the most important ones in your own personal life. unfortunately, that example has nothing to do with this topic so how about talking about human nature and what is moraly right and wrong. you have read your favorite book so many times that you are stuck back in the past without ever really experiencing it. time to come to the present buddy. with all those distractions that you say limit us when *I* say those same distraction make us better people when we have the ability to illiminate those distractions from our lives.

so since this thread is about morals and what can be proven as right or wrong, let's dig deeper on this homosexuality issue you have brought up in this conversation. is it the act of two men engaging in sodomy unnatural? is it two men kissing? is it two men holding hands? is it two men telling eachother that they love one another? is it a man who has any of those thoughts that doesn't act on them(you know....the closet gays). what about a person who is born with a penis AND a vagina? what about the ones who are born with no sexual organs? let's hear more about your views here, true fusion because i want to be really clear on what you are saying you believe is unnatural so i don't go off assuming things or twisting words like you do.

[kobra500 1]

No Truefusion, but since the ONLY real issues against homosexuality are derived Directly from religion, Name one Good argument AGAINST homosexuality that doesn't involve your interpretation of a Holy book that tells you that you can't eat shellfish or wear clothes of different fabrics, are they transcendent too? If that is your only argument then the laws forbidding homosexuality would directly go against the first amendment of your Country and Concerning overpopulation, sure moderation is a fairly comfortable when you are sitting snug at 6 billion but even if we embrace this lack of selfishness, which btw we won't the graph is getting steeper, so what about 7billion, 8 billion 10 billion human, 20 billion 100billion, homosexuality doesn't cause a problem by not having children because we don't need a bigger population it in no way benefits humanity and as medicine and science grows and lives extend and I note that you aren't complaining that your not living just 30 years no matter what eternity you believe in. Are infertile people lesser men and women too because they can't reproduce, are infertile people allowed to have sex if not for procreation? They are good candidates for adoption to save all those poor children born of the parents who rather couldn't look after them rather monetarily or they couldn't cope and who probably got into the situation because religion is sooo against teaching of safe sex. Especially the Catholic Church and I don't know about your views on the subject. Religion is a virus that spreads from Person to Person from indoctrination and broken promises, consuming minds so they are willing to believe that the mountains of evidence for one view or another is just a dung heap in a field somewhere, the sort of people who run "answersingenesis.com" which uses out of date science papers, often out of context to back up that there is a scientific conspiracy against religion and creation. The trouble is that for all the talk of being unselfish if you believe in Creation then you must believe that God created us flawed, it's nought to do with free will, psychopathics don't kill because they moved away from God, they kill because their mind is not functioning correctly, they are flawed before the fact. They aren't going to read the bible and it will be all better they will still be psychopaths and no matter how sorry I feel that they've been forced to live such an existence they need to be locked up for the safety of others, but your God according to you created them, he created them broken, and he wants them to burn for ever. How sick and twisted is that, you create life and then you torture it like a kid with a magnifying class to borrow a line from Bruce Almighty. Overpopulation is an issue and religion is not solving it, it is going against it, okay Catholicism and Islam mostly by telling people to do things that they are going to do, regardless and then not teaching them how to at least do it properly when they inevitably do. God must have created us flawed, because if we weren't then we wouldn't even consider going against Gods word even with free will, and psychopaths wouldn't exist, it has to be the this way around. @Bani, there is plenty of Evidence for Biological Causes of Homosexuality, I'll pm you the video when I found it that is really good at addressing the points. As for Moral absolutes, I will say that some morals whilst not innately wrong are certainly very close to it. But there are some which are breakable should you need to, or if you were put in a situation with a choice where the lesser of the evils is to break one moral. The source I would agree with you, isn't a book but I still say that Morals are based on society and on what is good for it and what is detrimental.

Edited June 10, 2010 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

To save space but still cause forum notifications to trigger (assuming they are dependent on my use of quote bbcode that specifies a user) i will have the content of the quotes empty.

 

 

I have not read the Bhagavat gita, but how does having history and instructions make it childish or immature? And in what way do history or instructions not imply some form of wisdom? And what is the point of having wisdom that cannot be understood? Should we expect God's ways to be so easily understood by us, whom we are much lesser to? Would it not require a mind of equal footing to God's mind? The very complexity of the universe implies the minimal intelligence of God, and we don't even fully understand this universe.

 

 

You asked why would preachers say that people are condemned if they believed that people are born without the knowledge of God's existence, and i answered it.

 

Very well, i shall quote you again but display the contradicting parts concerning the parts i was internally referencing with my statement.

if there is one thing i know about nature is that we are all the same and we are all different at the same time so there is no right or wrong. there just IS. and personally, it's not up to you to define what nature is. [...] sure, having sex and reproducing is natural. [...] when you get right down to it, the only thing that is natural is life itself. like i said, there is no right or wrong, but we need ''right'' and ''wrong''. we need to search for that truth and take our stand which would dictate right or wrong for our own selves......NOT for someone else.

Perhaps you meant everything i say is wrong, but everything anyone else says is acceptable (i.e. ''you'' is singular and not plural like i had assumed). That would make sense if it weren't for the fact that you state that it is only acceptable so long as people do not enforce their so-called newfound ''truth'' upon anyone. Indeed, how can anyone say (or imply) forcing something upon another is wrong when merely saying that it is wrong is itself forcing morals upon someone? I don't think you truly believe what you said. For a person who believes that there is no right and wrong, i would not expect them to be engaging themselves in this topic.

 

I do not believe i have twisted your words when i said that you said that we have no basis for our ''opinions.'' Your statement dealt with originality and creativity of thought. You said we are following what we have been told, presumably the statement that homosexuality is immoral (for what else could it possibly be?). Simply being told or saying such a thing does not provide any evidence on its own. Biblically, what is mentioned is that homosexuality is detestable. It is very difficult to try and figure out why it is detestable. There isn't anything explicit in the Bible that informs us of why it is detestable. An either-or conclusion is possible from this.

 

But you are right: i did not explicitly define ''natural.'' I shall provide a definition for it, and it deals with states (not divisions of land). It cannot, however, be said that everything bears the same natural; for a plant very much differs from a human; et cetera. While it is possible to apply natural to things that are metaphysical or spiritual, it is obvious that the physical and metaphysical bear different naturals, and so i will only touch on the physical. While the natural is capable of production and development, i cannot say that it is all simply one state but multiple states, for production and development will merely confuse the matter if they were all one state. Nevertheless, the natural is any state that would have been so if left on its own, where no external forces have made modifications to or have influenced the ''system.'' True, this does not necessarily provide a complete answer, for the word ''state'' is slightly ambiguous, and how do we know it would have been so? But i think it can be left like this for the time being.

 

There are many truths, yes; but truth is objective, not dictated but pointed out. (And life and death is Biblically explained.)

 

I can see why you would state i was contradicting myself, as i had not explicitly defined what is natural. A person born without the ability to produce but still capable of sex i call natural, for that is his uninfluenced state. Sodomy i do find to be immoral; not just because it is the improper placement of parts but because i see it as a form of degradation to the one giving but also to the one receiving, though not necessarily at the same time. Love and affection does seem to complicate what i have defined as ''natural.'' For it is natural to show affection and it is natural to receive pleasure through our senses, but the proper question is: Is it moral the way we go about it? Unnatural was merely one consequence that i mentioned against homosexuality. But the topic isn't about whether something is natural or unnatural, it is whether a moral and immoral can be defined. Therefore, concerning things like kissing and sodomy, et cetera, whether or not it is natural or unnatural may be irrelevant. Even if we are unable to apply ''unnatural'' to homosexuality, that wouldn't mean it is not immoral.

 

I always think of that perhaps my ways or what i am saying is wrong. That is why i work on my posts until i am satisfied with them. If i don't have time to write, i'll begin writing, save it and come back to it till i am done writing it. Sure, there may be moments where i fail to think of every single possibility and implications for my words and actions and therefore fail to properly address a matter, but if everything i said came from a book, you think i would fail to respond? Don't you think it is about time to prove that everything i say comes from a book? Do not let such an assumption remain an assumption; do not let your evidence ''collect dust.''

 

I very much realize that they too had their own things to be worried about, but their daily lives were more ''down to earth.'' How can one not contemplate on nature when your ''job'' deals with nature?

 

For the sake of consistency, sodomy and kissing would be unnatural regardless of whether homosexuals or heterosexuals are doing it. I do not think natural or unnatural can be applied to holding hands and telling someone else you love them. Causing thoughts to occur in your own head would be natural. I cannot say that simply having an immoral thought makes the act of having such a thought immoral in itself, for the thing that makes it immoral is not necessarily thinking about something immoral. As for a person being born with both male and female parts or with no sexual parts, that would be natural.

 

 

Perhaps you did not read my post where i formulated an argument that helps determine morality. Otherwise, how can you tell me to repeat myself? Indeed, point to me the Biblical verse(s) i used to support my argument. It has to be in there somewhere, for why else would you continue with the red herrings about me directly and indirectly presenting an argument that is said (or implied) to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible? And against the first admendment? What part of it would it infringe? Surely you are not mistaking ''freedom of religion'' with ''freedom from religion,'' for that would be falsely representing the first admendment, let alone the freedom of speech part.

 

The only complaints i've heard about over population is that it implies lack of resources. Is that your argument too? The moderation i was talking about is meant concerning the amount of time it takes for the earth to grow resources. You have to give the earth time to reflourish itself. If you eat all the food before then, then hunger will be your closest partner. The earth is fully capable of supplying for the population, you just need to give it time. Over population is not inherently immoral, if it can even be said that over population exists (as it is a term often used to describe a so-called dilemma).

 

Have i not already responded to the questions about those who lack reproductive organs naturally? If they lost it through unnatural means, then it is not the fact that they don't have reproductive organs that would be subject to immorality but the very thing that took it away.

 

Religion against safe sex? You mean the very people who so often speak against sex outside of marriage? I didn't think uncontrollable practices were safe. Do you believe that teaching people about condoms ultimately entails the use of them? If it is an uncontrollable urge, you think they'll unconvenience themselves by taking the time to get a condom when they'll be having sex in either scenario? Marriage implies practice of responsibility; condoms cannot compare to marriage concerning responsibility. And if you mean ''safe'' concerning STDs, while marriage cannot prevent such a thing without the use of ''protective gear,'' the morality from the religion should cause the person to inform their mate if the bearer of the STD bears knowledge of their STD.

 

Do you understand what they mean by ''good'' in Genesis 1:31? Correct, God did not create us ''perfect,'' but do you understand what is meant by ''good'' when God looks upon His work and declares that it is good? (Note that in either case, whether ''good'' or ''perfect,'' each would be a standard decided by God. So if one were to assume a perfect creation, you would have to figure out what a perfect creation would be to God.) What is obvious of ''man'' (the English translation of ''Adam'')? Man is created sinless; man is created with some authority in life; but, most importantly, man is created in a way that is satisfactory to God. The example you bring up concerning the ''psychopath'' is irrelevant to their initial state. For their initial state bears innocence; it is inherent within the initial state of man. The ''psychopath'' became murderous at a later time, presumably a far later time. Unless they were born with a mental handicap, their minds were and are functioning properly, their ways were just molded by sinful, external forces. God did not create man without the ability to make decisions for ourselves. This is part of the authority given to us. We have the authority to dictate our actions and therefore are responsible for them. There is no injustice, therefore, concerning punishment. But, technically, there is no flaw within the design, since the very things we label a ''flaw'' is merely a modification to the initial design.

 

I am interested in hearing about what you claim we will inevitably do that Catholicism and Islam tell us to do, for i do not know of something that they have told us not to do that we have not done already. And i am likewise interested in that video you will be PMing baniboy.

[sukhi 2]

@trueFusion

"

I have not read the Bhagavat gita, but how does having history and instructions make it childish or immature? And in what way do history or instructions not imply some form of wisdom? And what is the point of having wisdom that cannot be understood? Should we expect God's ways to be so easily understood by us, whom we are much lesser to? Would it not require a mind of equal footing to God's mind? The very complexity of the universe implies the minimal intelligence of God, and we don't even fully understand this universe.

"

Ofcourse it does when that is most holiest and divine book of yours. Imagine a law book not giving laws based on logic but cases of crimes as examples for justice. Wouldnt that be unacceptable to justice and logic because then there would be some people who would justify rape because in some societies it is considered for women to be at fault rather than male for the rape.History is not unintelligent in any way and it is knowledge but to base a large part of your holy book on history and not laws of the universe and consciouness would seem childish.

 

God would want his ways to be known to humans because he is loving and just. It is just that when he creates wisdom he also has to create opposite of wisdom and all of this God has to manage in the most perfect manner. That is what Bhagvat Gita Says : I have created all beings out of me .. good and evil and my work is to get them at the right track. Some may come now some later but eventually all will. The universe cannot be understood by reading history which is same and repeats. To know that history repeats and put in the holy book would be more wiser as a Law dont you think ?

Edited June 11, 2010 by OpaQue (see edit history)