- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arguments against gay marriage
Posted on 7/31/14 at 2:46 pm to amsterdam
Posted on 7/31/14 at 2:46 pm to amsterdam
quote:
The answer is God can be the only source of an objective moral value set.
I am Buddhist
Buddhism is an agnostic religion (i.e. does not believe nor disbelieve in god)
Buddhism moral values are based on betterment of oneself and enlightenment only.
If you really want to compare Buddhism's history and Moral values to Christianity's you will find them to be similar if not Buddhism having the edge at being more accepting and loving.
your opinion is just that an opinion you should study world religions more before making blanket posts on what you think to be true.
1
Posted on 7/31/14 at 2:50 pm to amsterdam
quote:
Better men than both of us have argued this point to death and both sides agree that without God objective moral values do not exist
The only moral value atheists have is that it's MORE ALL about what makes them feel good than what's good for society.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 2:59 pm to amsterdam
quote:
both sides agree that without God objective moral values do not exist
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:14 pm to Korkstand
quote:
What's it to us how people choose to share their lives and property? I mean, I don't get it, but why should society disallow people from bringing whatever misery they want on themselves, as long as everyone involved consents?
What do words mean? If we start redefining words based on our current whims why stop with marriage?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:31 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
What do words mean? If we start redefining words based on our current whims why stop with marriage?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but words have been redefined for as long as there have been words. If you are trying to prevent the "start" of a trend, you are a few millennia too late.
And since you asked, why don't you have a problem with religious conservatives redefining the word 'equality' to suit their whims?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:40 pm to benhamin5555
There are certain actions that I don't support, so therefore I won't vote for or advocate for. Homosexual marriage is one of those things.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:48 pm to mindbreaker
quote:+
Buddhism moral values are based on betterment of oneself and enlightenment only.
Which would support a subjective moral value set
quote:
your opinion is just that an opinion you should study world religions more before making blanket posts on what you think to be true
Actually its not "just my opinion" I would suggest you take your own advice and do a little research into the topic before commenting
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There are certain actions that I don't support, so therefore I won't vote for or advocate for. Homosexual marriage is one of those things.
Should the laws be based on your religious opinions, or should they be based on whether or not an action harms someone else's rights or property?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:55 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:Laws are "based" on a lot of reasons, typically what is "good" and what is "bad" for society. Those concepts are influenced by a lot of things, including religion.
Should the laws be based on your religious opinions, or should they be based on whether or not an action harms someone else's rights or property?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
both sides agree that without God objective moral values do not exist
Whats so hard to understand here? This is a basic and I mean basic argument. I encourage you to look into it and prove that I am wrong.
Again understand that what I am arguing is that God is the source of all objective moral values.
take this quote from the article I linked earlier:
"When a person, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or what have you, is functioning properly and not repressing or ignoring his conscience—especially while dwelling in a cultural milieu that reflects the moral truths of God—he basically knows right from wrong, good from evil. However, to know or believe that something is right or wrong is very different from justifying that thing’s being right or wrong. For example, one could know that flipping the light switch in the kitchen causes the light to go on and have absolutely no understanding of why this occurs or justification for how it really does so. By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundational existence of morality). The real question at hand is this: What grounds the atheists’ moral positions? What makes their moral views more than mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?"
The answer of course is that without God there isn't anything that grounds it.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 3:57 pm to Chuck Barris
quote:No. Not unless the supposedbasis is coincident.
Should the laws be based on your religious opinions
quote:or for an overarching societal purpose. e.g., entitlements.
should they be based on whether or not an action harms someone else's rights or property?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:10 pm to amsterdam
quote:This is correct. Without a universal source of moral truth, all other moral codes would have to be subjective (each individual decides their own system).
The answer is God can be the only source of an objective moral value set.
Those who reject a single source (God) of moral truth have to logically embrace the notion that morality is subjective and that a single, particular moral code would have to be enforced in spite of the fact that it is just one code among many. Otherwise, the ultimate question of "why" a particular code must be accepted has to be asked.
Those who claim the "do no harm" mantra for their source of moral truth are just picking one that they think works best from a practical perspective, but that standard has no more objective truth to it than someone who believes in "harm everyone".
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:14 pm to amsterdam
quote:If God was a totally objective source of moral values there wouldn't be hundreds of religions with thousands of sects and hermeneutics wouldn't be a thing.
Again understand that what I am arguing is that God is the source of all objective moral values.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:At least to an extent, morality is certainly subjective.
Those who reject a single source (God) of moral truth have to logically embrace the notion that morality is subjective and that a single
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:19 pm to Iosh
quote:The problem is not necessarily with the creator of the moral code or the code, itself, but the interpretation and application of the code by the recipients. It doesn't logically follow that a universal source of moral truth necessitates that all people will follow that truth, or even know or understand it properly.
If God was a totally objective source of moral values there wouldn't be hundreds of religions with thousands of sects and hermeneutics wouldn't be a thing.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:21 pm to amsterdam
quote:Oh, well of course.
The answer of course is that without God there isn't anything that grounds it.
The real answer, of course, is that god has been invented in order to give the illusion that there is an ultimate guide as to what is moral and what is not.
Since you continue to emphasize the term 'objective morals', I think we should talk about it a bit. You seem to be of the opinion that, since what is right/wrong or good/evil can be subject to one's beliefs, that morality is inherently subjective (unless, of course, one's morals were read from a book). I am of the opinion that, since without a conscience there can be no morality, this inherent bond makes it so that logic can be applied to determine which actions are moral, which are not, and which have no logical bearing on morality at all. In other words, some actions are logically/objectively immoral (murder, rape, theft), and some are subjectively immoral (homosexuality) and have no logical basis.
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:29 pm to Korkstand
quote:You still have to have some standard to judge actions as moral, immoral, or amoral. You say that some things are "logically/objectively immoral", but by what standard are you using to make that statement?
I am of the opinion that, since without a conscience there can be no morality, this inherent bond makes it so that logic can be applied to determine which actions are moral, which are not, and which have no logical bearing on morality at all. In other words, some actions are logically/objectively immoral (murder, rape, theft), and some are subjectively immoral (homosexuality) and have no logical basis.
From our conversation a few weeks ago (sorry I didn't continue to respond, btw; I got tied up for several days and forgot about it and then didn't bother to look it up again), I understand that you believe that the ability to act as you please so long as you don't harm others or interfere with their ability to act as they please is your standard for judging actions as moral or immoral. I would like to ask "why"? That's a very common moral code these days, but I fail to see why that is the right code to have and why everyone should have to abide by it or why my moral code is wrong and should be condemned in any sort of objective sense.
If there is no real, objective standard that all people are accountable towards, even condemnation of actions has no real meaning to it. When it is all said and done, it isn't about what is right and what is wrong, but what is enforced by those who are in power.
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 7/31/14 at 4:32 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
I get the feeling you are making this up as you go along.
This post was edited on 7/31/14 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 7/31/14 at 5:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Morality has no meaning outside the context of a society and the interaction between its participants, so the standard for objective morality is whether or not an action by one negatively impacts the participation of another. When you eliminate all subjective goals of a society (advancement, prosperity, etc) and strip it down to the essence of what a society is (simply coexisting), what remains is a very basic set of logical morals: do not kill, harm, steal... Everything else is subjective.
You still have to have some standard to judge actions as moral, immoral, or amoral. You say that some things are "logically/objectively immoral", but by what standard are you using to make that statement?
Posted on 7/31/14 at 5:02 pm to Kracktastic
quote:
I get the feeling you are making this up as you go along.
It's called 'critical thinking', you should give it a try.
Page 5 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News