The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Autokrat
It’s called the Euthyphro Dilemma. It’s a constructive dilemma written in one of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. The typical response (at least the one formulated by Aquinas) is that good is integral to God’s character ergo he dictates the good because he is the good.

Secular ethics (and by association, secular humanism) rests on an assumption, a presupposition that we should try to develop social mores and ethics that maximize human happiness and minimize pain. There is no absolute standard for it, not on a metaphysical level.

Theism also rests on an assumption and this is that God exists and is good and therefore developed absolute laws for humans to follow.

Think of it this way: I have faith that happiness is better than unhappiness and you have faith that God exists and is good. Both sides rest ultimately on an assumption. [/B]

You and I will always disagree in a discussion of secularism vs. religion. However, if secularism could achieve the same principles and morals as ethical monotheism, then I wouldn't be opposed to it coexisting.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but every statement that you make in opposition to mine are wrong and all of mine are right.

Yea it's time you move on. Your opinions have logical backing other than "they're opinions therefore everything is relative!"

that is correct.

you understand now why your argument sucks? im mirroring mine off of yours.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
that is correct.

you understand now why your argument sucks? im mirroring mine off of yours.

Except saying that the holocaust was wrong by universal standards, and that Guns N Roses are more talented by universal standards, IS logical, and therefore completely different than what you're stating.

*Who are you to say what's logical?*

^Definitely like a little kid always asking why.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's the problem. One group thinks one thing is good, while another group thinks another thing is good. Either group will justify acts as part of "maximizing human happiness." This is the flaw in secular humanism, if I'm understanding it correctly.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B]Except saying that the holocaust was wrong by universal standards, and that Guns N Roses are more talented by universal standards, IS logical,

why? you saying so doesnt make it true.

*Who are you to say what's logical?*

^Definitely like a little kid always asking why.

theyre absolutely right when they ask that.

out of curiosity, for those of you who have been browsing this forum for the last 30 minutes and havent posted anything, whats your opinion of the last few pages in here?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Is that not also true of religion? Just as secular ethics are pluralistic due variances in opinion, do not religions also disagree? Plurality of opinion is not restricted to secularism alone.

In regards to ethical monotheism, all 3 religions follow the 10 commandments. THAT much is universal. There are a lot of other laws each religions follow, and a lot of differences, sure. However, you can't make up random bullshit in religion to justify what you're doing. I mean you CAN but that would be like saying "I have a different opinion, therefore everything is relative!"

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why? you saying so doesnt make it true.

theyre absolutely right when they ask that.

I rest my case.

One thing that I hope you take seriously Sexy, is that you seem to be of the argument that if the moral relativist arguments mean that everything is possibly justifiable and that we have to obey 'mans laws' (or whatever) you'd rather follow absolute rules given by a higher being. You do realise that that is merely a statement of preference, not an actual argument, right? It has no bearing on which is correct or not.

i accept your concession on the matter. lets agree to do disagree beefy.

One thing that I hope you take seriously Sexy, is that you seem to be of the argument that if the moral relativist arguments mean that everything is possibly justifiable and that we have to obey 'mans laws' (or whatever) you'd rather follow absolute rules given by a higher being. You do realise that that is merely a statement of preference, not an actual argument, right? It has no bearing on which is correct or not.

its also a pro-relative argument.

if you follow a set of rules that is designated by an all powerful being, youre still just follwoing the rules of someone because they have the biggest stick, which means that its still relative.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i accept your concession on the matter. lets agree to do disagree beefy.

There's nothing to concede. There's just so much someone can say to someone else whose response would inevitably be "who are you to."

Originally posted by Nephthys
One thing that I hope you take seriously Sexy, is that you seem to be of the argument that if the moral relativist arguments mean that everything is possibly justifiable and that we have to obey 'mans laws' (or whatever) you'd rather follow absolute rules given by a higher being. You do realise that that is merely a statement of preference, not an actual argument, right? It has no bearing on which is correct or not.

No, I would follow the laws of a higher being regardless. What I am saying is that moral relativism is a crock, and if valid it would mean nothing is good or bad, nothing is better or worse.

My issue with veneficus regarding humanity is, I don't believe we can have secular ethics, because as humans, we have interests. Even if it is for the good of the group, we can spin just about anything, justify just about anything to accomplish the goals. And that's why I choose to follow a higher being, because for the most part, God's laws are absolute.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
if you follow a set of rules that is designated by an all powerful being, youre still just follwoing the rules of someone because they have the biggest stick, which means that its still relative. [/B]

Not sure how you added 2 and 2 together, and got red.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There's nothing to concede. There's just so much someone can say to someone else whose response would inevitably be "who are you to."

i agree with you.

relativism really sucks for discussions.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i agree with you.

relativism really sucks for discussions.

That's because using relativism effectively ends the discussion. You don't need any logical backing, just opinion and emotion.

absolutely. in the end its all futile.

doesnt mean that we cant discuss anything though 🙂 we can always discuss opinions and at least why we think something is valid or not. its just that god isnt going to come down and give us a cookie if we do so.

My issue with veneficus regarding humanity is, I don't believe we can have secular ethics, because as humans, we have interests. Even if it is for the good of the group, we can spin just about anything, justify just about anything to accomplish the goals. And that's why I choose to follow a higher being, because for the most part, God's laws are absolute.

This is exactly what I said. Just becuase you don't like something doesn't make it wrong, and you shouldn't bury your head in the sand just becuase of that.

That's because using relativism effectively ends the discussion. You don't need any logical backing, just opinion and emotion.

Much like religion.

Originally posted by Nephthys
This is exactly what I said. Just becuase you don't like something doesn't make it wrong, and you shouldn't bury your head in the sand just becuase of that.

No, I outlined why I don't like it. I outlined the flaws. I also stated that with secularism, you can make something like moral relativism become reality. You can't do that with a higher being.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, I outlined why I don't like it. I outlined the flaws. I also stated that with secularism, you can make something like moral relativism become reality. You can't do that with a higher being.

Exactly, and you said that becuase of the things you don't like, you prefer to follow a higher being.