30 Pieces of Silver

Originally posted by King of Blades
Believe what you may, but you are wrong. No human being is "worth more" than another.

Also I am not a hypocrite. I believe that there is NO EXCEPTION to this rule. None, nada, zip. I no sooner take preference to the doctor than I would to the police man. It is not enforcing the law if you have to break it. Nor do the ends become good if the means aren't also good. What you are saying is ridiculous.

The very existing of the law and the very fact that you agree with the law proves that you think that the ends justify the means.

There is no need to argue about it, it's a simple fact. Therefor you are a hypocrite.

You saying that you would not rate one life as more important then the other just makes you a person incapable of making though decisions that involve human beings.

Originally posted by Fishy
The very existing of the law and the very fact that you agree with the law proves that you think that the ends justify the means.

There is no need to argue about it, it's a simple fact. Therefor you are a hypocrite.

You saying that you would not rate one life as more important then the other just makes you a person incapable of making though decisions that involve human beings.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. I believe in that the means don't justify the ends. I believe this because the ends of an actions are separate from the means by which you achieve said ends. This is because it would be hypocritical of a person to say "I save peoples lives" and then kill people to save said lies. Not only is it hypocritical of the person but it is self defeating. This contradiction makes the ends worth nothing since you'd be better off doing nothing if you think your goal justifies the means to attain it.

With this being said your comment on rating humans on a scale is fallacious. Every human being is born (and I'd go so far back as conceived) with dignity. Every single one. Before we can tell of their social input, race, color, gender, religion, etc. they are all equal. When one twin makes a million dollars and the other barely gets by on scraps, the fact that they both have dignity still remains. They are inherently equal. Since they are inherently equal one can never be greater then the other. ER-FREAKING-GO you can not "coldly" some up a human with numbers and/or make some valuable then others.

I have presented my argument logically, clearly, and truthfully. I reserved nothing, contradicted nothing, and stood by all. I am, by no means, a hypocrite. Why don't you focus on the conversation at hand, and quite attacking my character (argumentum ad hominem). If you can't defend your point and must resort to childish name calling, then consent or this debate it over.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

No, betrayal is wrong. Unless you are really feel that your betrayal is to help others, but not for your own personal gain.

Originally posted by King of Blades
What you are saying doesn't make sense. I believe in that the means don't justify the ends. I believe this because the ends of an actions are separate from the means by which you achieve said ends. This is because it would be hypocritical of a person to say "I save peoples lives" and then kill people to save said lies. Not only is it hypocritical of the person but it is self defeating. This contradiction makes the ends worth nothing since you'd be better off doing nothing if you think your goal justifies the means to attain it.

If you don't believe that the ends justify the means no matter what then you are a hypocrite. Because the existing of the law is basically a means to an end. It's that simple. Ergo you want to live in anarchy but even then you would still be allowing certain means to create a certain end.

With this being said your comment on rating humans on a scale is fallacious. Every human being is born (and I'd go so far back as conceived) with dignity. Every single one. Before we can tell of their social input, race, color, gender, religion, etc. they are all equal. When one twin makes a million dollars and the other barely gets by on scraps, the fact that they both have dignity still remains. They are inherently equal. Since they are inherently equal one can never be greater then the other. ER-FREAKING-GO you can not "coldly" some up a human with numbers and/or make some valuable then others.

Sure you can, for instance you have two children both three years old. You have the chance to save one of them. The one will cure cancer in twenty years saving millions of life, the other will become a mass murderer or rapists. Easy decision if you ask me.

Now let's make a less absurd comparison. There are two people, both need a kidney to live on. One is 80 the other is 12 who do you give it to? In this case it would be the 12 year old, simply because he or she has a far longer life ahead of them, at least it's more likely that they do. You judge life all the time during situations like this. Why do you think boats used to have the rule "woman and children first"? Why do you think hospitals give organs to younger and more fit people without problems before giving them to old people or people with other diseases or mental issues? Because the quality of life and therefor the value of the life of the first group is rated higher then the value of the life of the second group.

I have presented my argument logically, clearly, and truthfully. I reserved nothing, contradicted nothing, and stood by all. I am, by no means, a hypocrite.

Does that ever even work in an argument? Saying you did things logically and you made no mistakes? Saying it doesn't always make it true you know... And definitely not in this situation.

Why don't you focus on the conversation at hand, and quite attacking my character (argumentum ad hominem). If you can't defend your point and must resort to childish name calling, then consent or this debate it over.

I am defending my point, and one of my points makes you a hypocrite simply because you support upholding of the law. Which is a means to an end. The end being peace or stability or whatever, the means being the justice system and everything that comes with it.

And if you want to end this debate then go ahead, not my problem. Crawling in the a corner and calling yourself a victim of name calling or simply declaring yourself to be the one that is right here doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean you are right.

Considering that money can buy everything. I wouldnt have a problem betraying a friend, especially if i can blame my actions on his nefarious behaviour. I could just buy a new friend

Originally posted by Fishy
If you don't believe that the ends justify the means no matter what then you are a hypocrite. Because the existing of the law is basically a means to an end. It's that simple. Ergo you want to live in anarchy but even then you would still be allowing certain means to create a certain end.

Do not make assumptions. You seem to be misunderstanding the topic here. This is do the means justify the ends. So allow me to take your example of government and apply it as such. If anything the purpose in life is to reach a certain order or harmony. It may not be for you, but it will be for this example. So we have the laws to establish such harmony. So yes we now have a means (laws) and the ends (harmony). But when I say "the ends do not justify the means" I am not saying that the end is good because I follow the laws. No it means that I can't achieve the ends by however means I wish to follow the laws. Example:

A man argues that humanity is inherently evil, ignorant, and chaotic. To achieve his goal of harmony he must eradicate the human race. With the eradication of the human race there is peace and harmony.

A second man sees that, though man has committed great atrocities in his past, is not inherently evil. Therefore, he chooses to seek the peace and harmony by bringing out the good in all people, and thus peace and harmony is assured.

Your arguing that because both men achieved the same goal, both means by which the end was accomplished are acceptable (the ends do justify the means). But anybody (if not everyone) will tell you that the second man is better then the first and that the means do not justify the ends.

Originally posted by Fishy

Sure you can, for instance you have two children both three years old. You have the chance to save one of them. The one will cure cancer in twenty years saving millions of life, the other will become a mass murderer or rapists. Easy decision if you ask me.

Originally posted by Fishy

Now let's make a less absurd comparison. There are two people, both need a kidney to live on. One is 80 the other is 12 who do you give it to? In this case it would be the 12 year old, simply because he or she has a far longer life ahead of them, at least it's more likely that they do. You judge life all the time during situations like this. Why do you think boats used to have the rule "woman and children first"? Why do you think hospitals give organs to younger and more fit people without problems before giving them to old people or people with other diseases or mental issues? Because the quality of life and therefor the value of the life of the first group is rated higher then the value of the life of the second group.

First off I don't make that decision, we have a list of people waiting for a kidney. Whoever happens to be on the list first gets the kidney first. Of course natural inclination would give it to the boy. But once again you are not making a point in regards to the means justifying the ends. And because the boy gets it first speaks nothing to his value. If anything to add to the above reference of speculation, the old man could have given up his kidney to the 12 year old.

We give the kidney to the boy not because we see a difference in value, but a sense of logic and practicality. It'd be a waste of a kidney to give it to an old man who may be seeing the end very soon, then to a boy who is merely beginning the journey of life. Notice that practicality does not imply a shift or deter in the human value, and by no means substitutes my claim of "the means not justifying the ends".

Originally posted by Fishy

Does that ever even work in an argument? Saying you did things logically and you made no mistakes? Saying it doesn't always make it true you know... And definitely not in this situation.

Yes. If I just came in here with pure speculation and personal opinions founded no where within the realm of reason, you would no sooner dismiss me and my point of view then you would dismiss the three year old predestined rapist/murder. Also because, assuming my argument is logic and presented clearly, then you would have to accept my premises as valid. However, that does not mean that because my argument is valid, that it is sound which is why we are debating in the first place: to discover a sound argument.

Originally posted by Fishy

I am defending my point, and one of my points makes you a hypocrite simply because you support upholding of the law. Which is a means to an end. The end being peace or stability or whatever, the means being the justice system and everything that comes with it.

Again you misunderstand, the purpose of the argument is if doing something bad for a good cause is justified. Not that the means in general are justified by the ends.

Originally posted by Fishy

And if you want to end this debate then go ahead, not my problem. Crawling in the a corner and calling yourself a victim of name calling or simply declaring yourself to be the one that is right here doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean you are right.

I would like this to end with a mutual understanding between us both. I am, once again put aside your assumptions, by no means "looking for a loop hole that I may seem the one who is right." Calling me a hypocrite was both: a) unfounded making no claim at all to the reasoning behind such a name calling and b) completely unnecessary seeing how little you are defending the current point now that you must find it necessary to undercut me with such a false title. Again I present ever retort to you with logic, and no name calling. I'd expect at least the latter to be returned to me in kind.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Do not make assumptions. You seem to be misunderstanding the topic here. This is do the means justify the ends. So allow me to take your example of government and apply it as such. If anything the purpose in life is to reach a certain order or harmony. It may not be for you, but it will be for this example. So we have the laws to establish such harmony. So yes we now have a means (laws) and the ends (harmony). But when I say "the ends do not justify the means" I am not saying that the end is good because I follow the laws. No it means that I can't achieve the ends by however means I wish to follow the laws. Example:

A man argues that humanity is inherently evil, ignorant, and chaotic. To achieve his goal of harmony he must eradicate the human race. With the eradication of the human race there is peace and harmony.

A second man sees that, though man has committed great atrocities in his past, is not inherently evil. Therefore, he chooses to seek the peace and harmony by bringing out the good in all people, and thus peace and harmony is assured.

And yet this is only from a certain point of view. For Osama bin Laden for instance killing Americans was not killing humans, it was just killing something inferior to save the lives of good people. Like humans killing pigs to have food, or killing lions or wolfs to ensure they can build a society. It's a point of view difference that determines how important a life is and which one is more important. Seeing as not all humans are judged equally you could hardly say that the way that saves most life is necessarily the best way. At least not to all humans.

Your arguing that because both men achieved the same goal, both means by which the end was accomplished are acceptable (the ends do justify the means). But anybody (if not everyone) will tell you that the second man is better then the first and that the means do not justify the ends.

In such a hugely extreme case perhaps, however when Hitler ordered the deaths of the Jews, many people did not see it as an extermination of people but of lesser things who needed to be removed like animals needed to be removed to give humans a better life. They found it more human to kill all the Jews and give all Aryans a good life, then living together with the Jews. Because they thought that inferior beings would be given rights that they do not deserve. Kinda like having pigs own a house for instance, you just don't do it.

That has nothing to do with the conversation, and is an entirely different philosophical argument to be discussed later. Your action is saving one of their lives, not letting the other die. That one of the negative effects of neutral/positive actions occurs is in by no means your fault. But like I said an entirely different conversation. Not to mention merely speculation and "what ifs". I can equally argue speculation and we'd go no where.

It has to do with the value of human life, something you brought up in the first place. Something you said was impossible to judge, it is very easy to judge.

First off I don't make that decision, we have a list of people waiting for a kidney. Whoever happens to be on the list first gets the kidney first. Of course natural inclination would give it to the boy. But once again you are not making a point in regards to the means justifying the ends. And because the boy gets it first speaks nothing to his value. If anything to add to the above reference of speculation, the old man could have given up his kidney to the 12 year old.

The old man needed a kidney he could hardly give it away... Now that list puts a value on human life, it's not an exact science that's because human beings are variables instead of statistic numbers. But you can still make a good guess on which variable will turn out to be more useful. That that variable might cause more harm is irrelevant in this case because we assume that humans will do good instead of bad, and most do. So it's an easily calculation to make. Young person > old person.

We give the kidney to the boy not because we see a difference in value, but a sense of logic and practicality. It'd be a waste of a kidney to give it to an old man who may be seeing the end very soon, then to a boy who is merely beginning the journey of life. Notice that practicality does not imply a shift or deter in the human value, and by no means substitutes my claim of "the means not justifying the ends".

But you don't get it do you? The quality of their life is the very definition of value. The young boy will be more beneficial to society. So he gets the kidney, the old men will likely not be so he won't get the kidney. We value the kid his life more. But you could bet your ass off that if that old guy was very close to finding a cure for cancer he would get the kidney just so he could have a chance to complete his miracle cure. The one kid would be a worthwhile sacrifice, simply because the lives of many are worth more then the life of one.

Yes. If I just came in here with pure speculation and personal opinions founded no where within the realm of reason, you would no sooner dismiss me and my point of view then you would dismiss the three year old predestined rapist/murder. Also because, assuming my argument is logic and presented clearly, then you would have to accept my premises as valid. However, that does not mean that because my argument is valid, that it is sound which is why we are debating in the first place: to discover a sound argument.

Fine talk around it, if that's what you want to do. Thing is though you clearly don't see where I am coming from. You say that the boy has more life ahead of him therefor he deserves it, I say that directly relates to his possible value to humanity. You refuse to see it like that, when in the end the decision can easily be seen as a simple economical decision if nothing else. Woman and children first for instance is a principle that guarantees the continuation of society. Pregnant woman for instance get the same kind of treatment, why because they have life in them. They have the ability to make more. Making them worth more to humanity then other people.

Again you misunderstand, the purpose of the argument is if doing something bad for a good cause is justified. Not that the means in general are justified by the ends.

Then define bad and good without going overboard. It's a point of view perspective. And from a certain point of view doing something bad to do something good isn't really bad at all. It would be worse to not do the bad thing in the first place.

I would like this to end with a mutual understanding between us both. I am, once again put aside your assumptions, by no means "looking for a loop hole that I may seem the one who is right." Calling me a hypocrite was both: a) unfounded making no claim at all to the reasoning behind such a name calling and b) completely unnecessary seeing how little you are defending the current point now that you must find it necessary to undercut me with such a false title. Again I present ever retort to you with logic, and no name calling. I'd expect at least the latter to be returned to me in kind.

Calling you a hypocrite was wrong, but that is because there was a mis-communication between the two of us. You think that upholding the law is not a bad thing and therefor does not play into this discussion. Whereas I think it's a Point of view directly related to what the majority of a country thinks, and therefor still means that the ends justify the means. Simply because there are people who would disagree and for them the law is a bad thing, and the government is basically declaring (in their view) that the end does justify the means.

Not to mention that not all laws are there for our good and a lot of them go way overboard.

Originally posted by Fishy
Thing is though you clearly don't see where I am coming from.

Fine then lets take a different path to understanding one another.

Do you believe that all things are relative to a persons perspective (i.e. all things are subjective)?

Originally posted by King of Blades
Fine then lets take a different path to understanding one another.

Do you believe that all things are relative to a persons perspective (i.e. all things are subjective)?

Yes.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes.

How can something be objectively subjective?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Whether you're Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Marxist, Atheist, Misc...whatever your noodles dictates.

Tell me.

Betrayal is justified?

You feel that betraying someone for a greater good is acceptable?

Of course there are exceptions, but I believe that most people who betray somebody else for "the greater good" care more for their own gain.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Considering that money can buy everything. I wouldnt have a problem betraying a friend, especially if i can blame my actions on his nefarious behaviour. I could just buy a new friend

That's exactly what I mean!

Originally posted by King of Blades
How can something be objectively subjective?

Oh that trick again? Really, that the best you can come up with? That would be like me asking you, how you know what is good or not? How
can you be sure about it?

Now how can everything be subjective in my mind except for the fact that everything is subjective?

Easy, I don't know.

And as long as you don't know, you can't be sure. You can't judge other opinions. Because for all you know they are good and yours are wrong, or perhaps they are equally valid because there is no higher power to judge us, and our morale views come simply from society has told us they should be and then again perhaps not. Perhaps God thinks our western morales are just and right and perhaps god exist. But as long as you don't know, as long as you aren't sure judging people who think differently is just claiming yourself to be superior to them without any real reason for it. Except for your own personal subjective view of the world perhaps.

Originally posted by Fishy
Oh that trick again? Really, that the best you can come up with? That would be like me asking you, how you know what is good or not? How
can you be sure about it?

Now how can everything be subjective in my mind except for the fact that everything is subjective?

Easy, I don't know.

And as long as you don't know, you can't be sure. You can't judge other opinions. Because for all you know they are good and yours are wrong, or perhaps they are equally valid because there is no higher power to judge us, and our morale views come simply from society has told us they should be and then again perhaps not. Perhaps God thinks our western morales are just and right and perhaps god exist. But as long as you don't know, as long as you aren't sure judging people who think differently is just claiming yourself to be superior to them without any real reason for it. Except for your own personal subjective view of the world perhaps.

The fact that you fell for it only proves the weakness of your argument. You hide behind logical fallacies believing that such bulwarks will hold your opposition at bay. But I assure you, objective realities are the premise of many if not all philosophical ideas that surface in the world of man. Take away such foundations, and it's like walking on a ground that moves at the same speed you do. You go no where. It is clear that you can not bring to this argument anything resolute, claiming universal subjectivism to be your one and only defense. Find me a post where you've used something more then your own opinion backed by something other then your beliefs and practicality, and I may be inclined to believe that something you say makes sense.

You can't keep claiming that because we "don't know" we "can't be sure". Obviously there are sure fire things other then science out in the world. And there are objective realities that we as a people live by. Practicality, forgive my redundancy, is practical and efficient and you are correct in saying that it's not fair. Obviously if it isn't fair, then there must be something we compare the fairness too. Something we know is greater then it that we strive for, something we KNOW exists. We wouldn't call it an "unfair system" unless we knew the fair system in the first place. Do I deny that people use the "unfair system"? Of course not. In fact, I admit that I am one personally to use it at times (though that doesn't mean that it's right or my point is invalid). All I am saying is that surly something that both exists and is fair is something we should try to achieve. One of the sureties of this "fair system" is that everyone is treated equal. On what grounds come this equality? On the grounds that humans are born with dignity. A dignity from which stem our inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A right that denies slavery (though slavery existed at times). A right that denies injustice (although injustice exists in the world). You're not a man who would deny a human his right? Then if so, how can you claim that one man is "worth" more then another?

It is logically contradicting to believe that a man who has rights and innate dignity (both these things are considered universal truths) and yet has different worth. If you still contest these basic premises then what hope do I have in saying that the ball will hit the ground if the ground moves away from it?

Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes betrayal is justified. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I have been, and always shall be, your friend. Shaz-bot, na-nu na-nu.

Originally posted by King of Blades
The fact that you fell for it only proves the weakness of your argument. You hide behind logical fallacies believing that such bulwarks will hold your opposition at bay. But I assure you, objective realities are the premise of many if not all philosophical ideas that surface in the world of man. Take away such foundations, and it's like walking on a ground that moves at the same speed you do. You go no where. It is clear that you can not bring to this argument anything resolute, claiming universal subjectivism to be your one and only defense. Find me a post where you've used something more then your own opinion backed by something other then your beliefs and practicality, and I may be inclined to believe that something you say makes sense.

You can't keep claiming that because we "don't know" we "can't be sure". Obviously there are sure fire things other then science out in the world. And there are objective realities that we as a people live by. Practicality, forgive my redundancy, is practical and efficient and you are correct in saying that it's not fair. Obviously if it isn't fair, then there must be something we compare the fairness too. Something we know is greater then it that we strive for, something we [b]KNOW exists. We wouldn't call it an "unfair system" unless we knew the fair system in the first place. Do I deny that people use the "unfair system"? Of course not. In fact, I admit that I am one personally to use it at times (though that doesn't mean that it's right or my point is invalid). All I am saying is that surly something that both exists and is fair is something we should try to achieve. One of the sureties of this "fair system" is that everyone is treated equal. On what grounds come this equality? On the grounds that humans are born with dignity. A dignity from which stem our inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A right that denies slavery (though slavery existed at times). A right that denies injustice (although injustice exists in the world). You're not a man who would deny a human his right? Then if so, how can you claim that one man is "worth" more then another?

It is logically contradicting to believe that a man who has rights and innate dignity (both these things are considered universal truths) and yet has different worth. If you still contest these basic premises then what hope do I have in saying that the ball will hit the ground if the ground moves away from it? [/B]

The facts we have are on science, not on personal opinions. I'm talking about morale issues here not scientific one's. You are confusing the two. Or perhaps you just really badly want to mix the two together so you can win another stupid argument on the internet.

The fact is if God exist we don't know what God believes and if God or heaven does not exist then what we do here doesn't matter in the first place, at least not beyond this life.

So no matter which one is true it doesn't change a damned thing. You don't know if an opinion is right or wrong, you don't know if what Hitler did was evil or good in the grand scheme of things (assuming God exists that is). He might have been a prophet for all you know. And if God didn't exist then Hitler still did what he believed is right, that you believe otherwise or that the majority of the world believes otherwise doesn't automatically make it right.

Democracy's are only for deciding how people should be governed and the laws, not deciding objective truths. If there is such a thing in the first place.

Originally posted by Fishy
The facts we have are on science, not on personal opinions. I'm talking about morale issues here not scientific one's. You are confusing the two. Or perhaps you just really badly want to mix the two together so you can win another stupid argument on the internet.

The fact is if God exist we don't know what God believes and if God or heaven does not exist then what we do here doesn't matter in the first place, at least not beyond this life.

So no matter which one is true it doesn't change a damned thing. You don't know if an opinion is right or wrong, you don't know if what Hitler did was evil or good in the grand scheme of things (assuming God exists that is). He might have been a prophet for all you know. And if God didn't exist then Hitler still did what he believed is right, that you believe otherwise or that the majority of the world believes otherwise doesn't automatically make it right.

Democracy's are only for deciding how people should be governed and the laws, not deciding objective truths. If there is such a thing in the first place.

Wow lets project our own intentions into other people's agendas, shall we? I have absolutely no problem in "losing" this argument over the internet. In fact the internet has nothing to do with it. Hell WINNING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. What a stupid red herring. I have mentioned time and time before that the point of my debate was to further expound on the truth I (and I suppose you) am trying to find. Not impose beliefs and philosophies on another as you so seem so fixed to do. Science, if anything, has nothing to do in regards to this. If anything science argues SPECIFICALLY AGAINST YOU! Science recognizes every human being with fundamental equal origins, anatomies, and mental structures. From PHILOSOPHY does your point stem, not science. Don't try so hard to mix the two unless you want to win another stupid argument over the internet.

If God exists we know enough about him to understand what it is he wants. And one of the major things that we know God to be is orderly. Because like every creator of some magnificent piece of artwork, he puts a little of himself into his creation. We see order in his creations. We see balance, beauty, intelligence, complexity, etc. If anything, we know a lot about God. But I agree with you that if God doesn't exist, not much of what we do matters. Hitler's a freaking saint, and your a raving lunatic because there'd be no truth.

You can tell me that a line is curved because you've seen a straight one. I can correct a wrong opinion because I know the right answer. We judge ACTIONS from being bad and good because we have some standard by which to compare them to. We can determine absolutes because absolutes exist. THEY DO EXIST. All realms of logic, perception, thinking, etc accept this as gospel truth. Universal subjectisim is a logically flawed argument and way of thinking. If nothing can be true, or known, then all things proven and existent are wrong. Science, the bulwark from which you hide behind, would be wrong.

Democracy's are for demonstrating a collective conscience. Universal truths and goals, wants and needs that are shared and need not be taught or mentioned to be known. Objective truth isn't "found" as one finds lost keys. It is discovered as one finally realizing why a wall is built, or why the apple falls from the tree. However truths can be twisted, ideas corrupted, and philosophies distorted. Persevere through veils of deception and you'll see the light of truth.

Originally posted by King of Blades
Wow lets project our own intentions into other people's agendas, shall we? I have absolutely no problem in "losing" this argument over the internet. In fact the internet has nothing to do with it. Hell WINNING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. What a stupid red herring. I have mentioned time and time before that the point of my debate was to further expound on the truth I (and I suppose you) am trying to find. Not impose beliefs and philosophies on another as you so seem so fixed to do. Science, if anything, has nothing to do in regards to this. If anything science argues SPECIFICALLY AGAINST YOU! Science recognizes every human being with fundamental equal origins, anatomies, and mental structures. From PHILOSOPHY does your point stem, not science. Don't try so hard to mix the two unless you want to win another stupid argument over the internet.

Huh? What? I don't want to mix science and philosophy, in fact the two can be completely separated if you really believe "I think therefor I am"

If God exists we know enough about him to understand what it is he wants. And one of the major things that we know God to be is orderly. Because like every creator of some magnificent piece of artwork, he puts a little of himself into his creation. We see order in his creations. We see balance, beauty, intelligence, complexity, etc. If anything, we know a lot about God. But I agree with you that if God doesn't exist, not much of what we do matters. Hitler's a freaking saint, and your a raving lunatic because there'd be no truth.

No we assume we know what God wants. Now are assumptions could be true, but that's what they said during the Inquisition the crusades, the recent Muslim extremists attacks on the western world. All claim to know what God wants and what God believes. Our image of a peaceful and merciful God is the one I would want to be true, and in that case a lot of people are doing a lot of things wrong but who knows perhaps the earlier Christian Popes were right in thinking that is what God wanted, perhaps Mohamed was right perhaps Osama Bin Laden still is. Or perhaps they were all right for a limited time and things have changed and God with it. This is something I personally believe, but that does not make it true. Because I simply can not prove that God exists. Therefor it is a possibility that I am wrong and Hitler wasn't wrong, or at least not morally speaking because there is no larger governing body to say what is right or not.

You can tell me that a line is curved because you've seen a straight one. I can correct a wrong opinion because I know the right answer. We judge ACTIONS from being bad and good because we have some standard by which to compare them to. We can determine absolutes because absolutes exist. THEY DO EXIST. All realms of logic, perception, thinking, etc accept this as gospel truth. Universal subjectisim is a logically flawed argument and way of thinking. If nothing can be true, or known, then all things proven and existent are wrong. Science, the bulwark from which you hide behind, would be wrong.

I do not hide from science, I'm merely saying that what it has proven seems logical and therefor true to us (me included) but doesn't necessarily have to be so. Besides science gives no real moral guidelines. Absolutes especially morale absolutes are based on something. We could say that our natural instincts are the most true, or just less likely to be false and even they give us strange issues to deal with. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality for instance. All go against what most people would say are our most basic natural urges, but are they any less natural then normal heterosexuality? Science thinks that they are urges, religion (or a lot of them at least) think they are wrong evil morally twisted. Which is right? Or perhaps both, perhaps they are natural things but God does not like them anyway, because the Devil screwed things up.

The thing is as long as we don't know the answer I'm not ready to say my way is the only way. You may very well be right, in fact I hope you are. But I don't know.

Democracy's are for demonstrating a collective conscience. Universal truths and goals, wants and needs that are shared and need not be taught or mentioned to be known. Objective truth isn't "found" as one finds lost keys. It is discovered as one finally realizing why a wall is built, or why the apple falls from the tree. However truths can be twisted, ideas corrupted, and philosophies distorted. Persevere through veils of deception and you'll see the light of truth.

Democracy's are the collective idea's of a majority of the country, not objective truths. Idea's might very well change in ten to 50 or even a hundred years. What we once believed as a certain truth will then be seen as a the idea's of atheists or perhaps the uneducated. The overall morale viewpoints on this planet have changed dozens of times and will likely do so again over time.

Now if we are advancing in our morale views as we would like to believe and that would bring us closer to what God wants us to be like then that would be great. But until I talk to God or somebody else does who can deliver His/Her or It's message clearly I don't see a reason to state that we are right above all else and there is no point in discussion.

(This does not mean I think things like murder, rape, pedophilia bestiality or crap like that should happen, I think that as long as you live in a country with laws you should abide those laws, move away or try to change them in a way according with those laws and not act against the law until you have changed it.)