Originally posted by clickclick
Again you are talking about beliefs rather than truths. Saving a little girls life is objectively good.
You asked whether or not he would consider someone saving the life of his daughter to be good and I provided an instance in which he would not. Do not ask for an expression of belief if what you really want is an expression of truth.
Yeah even animlas have a justice system for that, let one gorilla take another gorillas banana and see what happens
I was not talking about taking something in your possession, I was talking about "honoring" an agreement.
If you truly have relativistic beliefs then you can not get upset because nothing was unjust. There is no absolute standard dictating that a person must honor their agreement. Thinking that somebody should honor their agreement would contradict relativistic beleifs.
I was not talking about taking something in your possession, I was talking about "honoring" an agreement.bonds out to be the same, if you dont honor the agreement of the bet you lost you actually do deprive me of what should be mine.
There is no absolute standard dictating that a person must honor their agreement.since the dawn of man it has been a kind of trade and honor system.
Well I was trying to see if he even thought that good existed but my main point was about moral truthsgood do exist so do moral, but moral views differ due to where in the world you are at.
bonds out to be the same, if you dont honor the agreement of the bet you lost you actually do deprive me of what should be mine.
Should be yours according to what? The agreement we had (this bet)? Well according to my moral standards I have no reason to uphold such a thing and so nothing has been violated. That is if there is no absolute standard and relativistic beliefs were true.
since the dawn of man it has been a kind of trade and honor system.
That would only go along with what im saying, that there are objective moral standards.
good do exist so do moral, but moral views differ due to where in the world you are at.
Yes of course I agree that people have different beliefs when it comes to morals. I also believe that there are some objective moral standards.
That would only go along with what im saying, that there are objective moral standards.I just call it moral period
Should be yours according to what? Well according to my moral standards I have no reason to uphold such a thing and so nothing has been violated. That is if there is no absolute standard and relativistic beliefs were true.according to a bet you had, i wouldnt care if according to YOUR moral standard you wouldnt have done nothing wrong, your knees would have gone regardless your view on the matter
Indeed I mean of course I belive that there is a word good, and that in different definitions of "good" but first of all I'd say everyopne considers good what he wants or likes,
second I think we should decide on what we call good and what bad I'd just say there is no "eternal" good. Like for my belive I think good is what serves humankind and humans, this again needs more clarification for instance what serves humankind and what goal should we have for now. So for me as a person if someone saves my daighte (and I like her) I'D be rathe3r happy and consider it "good" but as in good to me not as in a good to god or some other natural moral.
Originally posted by clickclick
Well according to my moral standards I have no reason to uphold such a thing and so nothing has been violated. That is if there is no absolute standard and relativistic beliefs were true.
If you have no reason to withhold such an agreement, you would not have entered into the agreement in the first place. It would be rather pointless to make an agreement you never had any intention of honoring.
No, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are since there is an agreement of the majority of people what they consider as good and they would force it upon you, its all jsut a kinf of darwinism, survivbal of the fitrtest just that some made agreements to force their beliefs on others. Thewre is no natural good or bad, there are sets of morals though that you have to accept if you are njot stronger and more powerful than the people want those beliefs.
If you have no reason to withhold such an agreement, you would not have entered into the agreement in the first place. It would be rather pointless to make an agreement you never had any intention of honoring.
That is mere speculation and incorrect at that.
There are people who renege on bets and such.
I just call it moral period
It seems more like you believe in objective moral standards. If you think it is relative to the individual, than he can not be wrong. Yours is no more right than his.
according to a bet you had, i wouldnt care if according to YOUR moral standard you wouldnt have done nothing wrong, your knees would have gone regardless your view on the matter
The deal is this. If you believe that agreements should be honored, you believe in moral truths.
Clickclick> “The big bang was not the question. The big bang is the explanation for the creation of the universe. What is in question is the existence of the singularity that preceded space and time.”
Oh, for Pete’s sake… Make up your mind on what it IS that is the question. It seems that everytime I prove your statements wrong, you claim that wasn’t the issue in the FIRST place. Lousy argumentation technique-alarms are going off here…
Singularities. Do you KNOW what a singularity is in terms of the General Theory of Relativity? And why these singularities ”exist”?
”No, Im saying that I believe it to be true.” Yes, but that is in no way enough to show that it IS true. Morality is evidence of morality and conscience. Nothing more and nothing less.
The Universe is evidence of… The Universe. And an orderly Universe???! What on Earth do you mean? Orderly? As compared to what?
”No but we can switch to french if you would like.” Well, you attacked me personally for what you judged to be bad use of English. This is your language. It’s not my first. My first language is Danish, so we can conduct our debate in that language and see how well you will fare. Tell me what French has to do with this?
”To say that 1+ (-1)=0 is assuming that there has to be something.”
No, it’s merely mathematics. 1=1, right? Then 1-1=0, and 1- (+1) =0. Simple addition-laws of math. It is assuming nothing save one equals one.
Can you understand this?
Can you also understand this: If you wait long enough the improbable will happen. If you wait forever the impossible will happen?
Let me know, and we take it from there.
Ok, so you believe in objective moral standards. Otherwise you have relativistic beliefs which would mean "just" wouldnt have an absolute standard.I believe in a subjective moral standard, we determin what is right or wrong , no god no source for objective moral, no heaven and hell to seperate the morals from the imoral. Moral is subjective
hey omega. if i didnt miss something, you still didnt pronounce against my post...
Originally posted by DuronKiller
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Omega
Duronkiller> Oh, but you are. But fortunately I am also entitled to simply shrug at your blatant display of ignorance and move on.
nice argumentation there dude 😆
someone doesnt share your opinion (your belief)... so you get aggressive and tell ME that im stupid... (isnt this the same way the church brought so many people in to christian belief?)... then i try to explain my point of view to you and ask you (indirect) how scientists could know that there are quarks in positrons and neutrons.... and you ignore me?!?!? WELL thats a big point 😉 now i believe in everything you say 😆
Originally posted by The Omega
“god is the start of anything and everything on the earth.”
Prove that.
Prove the opposite 😉 😛 [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by clickclick
That is mere speculation and incorrect at that.There are people who renege on bets and such.
It is one thing to renege on an agreement, it is something else to make an agreement you have no intention of honoring in the first place. The latter is equivocal to ordering a meal you have no intention of eating.
It is one thing to renege on an agreement, it is something else to make an agreement you have no intention of honoring in the first place. The latter is equivocal to ordering a meal you have no intention of eating.
Please, what do you think reneging is? No its not like ordering a meal you have no intention of eating. Lets say it was, whats your point?