Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What the World Needs is Less Religion, and More Humanitarians...Desperately

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 

I just went and read the last 3 pages there are many questions... the part about the debate is this and I have responded.



Now, here's the thing, I really DON'T want to spend my time in a formal debate, so I am willing to say agree to disagree. This will take up much time, so an agreement here would suit me more; however:

If that does not suit you, and you absolutely insist, I will debate you. You must agree however to stop with the childish insults and accusations for which I've had to retaliate. I feel like I'm debating with a crybaby. No more name calling either.

I assume the premise will be 'Humanism: The Harbinger of a New Age, or the Destruction of Our Civility'. Yeah, sounds good doesn't it? Sometimes I just surprise myself. The alternative was 'Humanism: Good or Bad'. I like the first one better.


So the questions I see are do I agree to make personal remarks- I answered OK

The second is the title. I think we should use the sentence I proposed from your literature that way it doesn't come from me or you but a third party source.


If there's another question. there's no need to be mysterious please ask me again.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This is what I thought we could use. It's your material... but its neutral in that a third party wrote it.



Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


No, that's not it. If you're going to accuse me of not reading your posts, you might want to make sure that you read mine.

I suggested 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism'.

And you proposed this yesterday, and you even admitted it just a couple of posts ago. Please stop exaggerating to make your points.

I'm headed out right now, but if you choose to accept the title theme to be 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism' (I'm thinking on how the world is today, whether we have moral relativity or absolute morals), I will write junglejake when I get back.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]


I find it insulting that it's taken me so long to get an answer from you, and this is the second post in which I asked a question regarding the theme. I saw your little trick you were going for with the old title theme, so I proposed this one, and am amazed how many times I've had to post this and ask for an answer.

If you want a debate, answer my question in this above quote.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism'

YOUR title then OK - I can do that. I agree

Please Proceed.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Thank you.

I've U2U'd Vagabond.

Quick question, why did you get a star for that post?

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I have stated my case and I can state it no better.

All that I am saying in the end is that I am not so arrogant as to think that my morals are the absolute set of rules by which humanity should hold itself.

I believe in certain things, but I would never force them upon others.

I believe in the free will of all men and women to do as they wish. This is the very antithesis to communist ideologues!! Communism held that the state knows the absolute morality, the absolute truth. Communism held that no man's views are correct if they dissent from the views of ths state. Relativism allows the free expression of thought and mind. Relativism allows the unharnessed potential of human thought to flow.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree whammy: Even if I believe I have the answer, I will not force it upon others. Apparently you wish to force your idea of morality onto others?

To use the example of a pregnancy resultant of rape again, I would not seek to take any action directly or indirectly (by voting for a law), to stop the woman from doing as she pleases. Would you?

I know you consider a fetus to have human rights and I respect your point of view, even if I disagree with it. You know why I do that? Im a relativist. If I were a moral absolutist, I would be shouting at you with venom for supporting what I believed to be an immoral ground.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 




I believe in the free will of all men and women to do as they wish. This is the very antithesis to communist ideologues!! Communism held that the state knows the absolute morality, the absolute truth. Communism held that no man's views are correct if they dissent from the views of ths state. Relativism allows the free expression of thought and mind. Relativism allows the unharnessed potential of human thought to flow.


This quote is very well said.

The debate will go on, and the topic will be 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism' where I am glad to not necessarily have you in my corner (unless this turned into a group debate, in which I would be very glad to have you there), but glad that you share the same ideology as myself.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 



Here is where we fundamentally disagree whammy: Even if I believe I have the answer, I will not force it upon others. Apparently you wish to force your idea of morality onto others?


You are fundamentally wrong about me sir. I don't force anything on anyone. Thats why we have courts and police. NEWSFLASH courts force their (our) ideas of morality on others everyday .



I know you consider a fetus to have human rights and I respect your point of view, even if I disagree with it. You know why I do that? Im a relativist. If I were a moral absolutist, I would be shouting at you with venom for supporting what I believed to be an immoral ground.


I can respect your right to have a point of view - while having the utmost venom toward your point of view.

Relativism is EVIL - You seem to be a nice guy. See that was easy.

I wonder if you will consider this scenario, relatively speaking that is...

If the government passed a law that forces women to have rape babies - Then by the logic you used against me - it is it wrong for you to shout about forcing women to have rape babies. After all you would be trying to force your view on others. We can't have that.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Thank you.

I've U2U'd Vagabond.

Quick question, why did you get a star for that post?

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]


I guess someone liked it bert. I suppose there are some folks that read this that support me. Is that such an alien idea to you? I'm not the only one who shares my stated values. They are the same values laid down in the United States Constitution.

Why does yours have a star?



[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Wow. Your overwhelming ego will be your downfall.

It was meant as a light, relaxed, fun type of question because you didn't say anything in the post except for accept the title of the debate. Stupid me for thinking I'd get a little laugh out of you.

Pull back your claws there, big boy, and chill.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I dont think it is wrong for me to advocate a position, because that is an expounding of my philosophy and ideas.

However I would hate to vote for a law which forced women to have children of rape, because this would be an imposition of my will upon the woman by the democratic process of majority rule.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that we must demarkate a line which morality must not cross in respect to natural rights. You must not be able to impose your will upon anyone, and neither must I.

Each person must choose what their morals are and stick to them. I have no right, I have no inclination to force a woman to have a baby resultant of rape, neither do I want to force her to abort the fetus.

I would love to believe that there exists a universal set of morals. However widespread belief in this would only lead to more sectarianism.

For example, if I truly believed that eating eggs was a most immoral activity, I would be using any means (including terrorist actions) to stop the eating of eggs. However, if I believed that eating eggs was an immoral activity, but simultaneously acknowledge that my morality may not be the ultimate code of good, then I cannot be militant or dogmatic.

I use "eating eggs" as a ridiculous example of course, you could replace that with any action and the sentiment would be the same.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


I dont think it is wrong for me to advocate a position, because that is an expounding of my philosophy and ideas.

However I would hate to vote for a law which forced women to have children of rape, because this would be an imposition of my will upon the woman by the democratic process of majority rule.


Oh so you do believe it is absolutely wrong to force women to have rape babies?



I suppose what I'm trying to say is that we must demarkate a line which morality must not cross in respect to natural rights. You must not be able to impose your will upon anyone, and neither must I.


What are NATURAL rights? what does natural mean? Does that mean they are absolute - perhaps- unchanging? hahahha

Just because I believe there is an absolute moral standard does not mean I advocate imposing on others rights without cause. Don't we impose on peoples freedom by jailing them for crimes?

In fact it is the objective Moral Law that both you and I are both appealing to make that judgment.

You are an absolutist, if I am.



[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
Quick question, why did you get a star for that post?


*comes out of the shadows*

I starred both you and BW for your posts about the titles because 1). I am extremely excited to see this tentative debate as it is a subject I do not know much about and hoping I learn something and 2). I like seeing two people come to an agreement on something after them being involved in a mini-feud. Ya, I'm a sap and an indiscriminate star-giver but I like seeing two people be mature and come to terms on things.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 




Hey Ashley!

*Waves in a dorklike fashion*

It's cool, I didn't mean anything by the question, it really didn't bother me at all, I was just trying to get on a more personal level with Whammy and get a little laugh.

Thanks for coming by and explaining it though.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


* also waves in dork like fashion to everyone*

* offers his hand to shake bigberts hand *

Bert it's really not personal. I like to use satire and you do too. I think I am right.

You think you are right - well actually you only think you are relatively right.

But this will be fun. It's not an ego thing - I really do care about what I believe in.

It's my first time doing it. I will make every effort to keep it scholarly and about the ideas.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Nice point Whammy.

I do see that natural rights could be seen as a form of moral absolutism.

However is it correct to impose even natural rights upon others?

I believe that natural rights are the ultimate set of rights that must be inherent to mankind. However who agrees with me? Will a radical islamist agree with me?

Indubitably, a very interesting point though. Would I consider freedom and natural rights to be an absolutely moral set of rights? I think they do, but at the same time those are some of the only things I belive ought to be universally held. Perhaps youre right, perhaps I am an absolutist.

But I still get lost in the details... Would absolutism not lead to people seeking to impose their will upon others? Would absolute belief in pro-life stances not lead to forcing your idea of morality onto a woman?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Electricneo
Humainitarianism is good but it is still a religion without rituals.


I beg to differ:

I'd say religion is simply humanitarianism with a users manual for those that don't really understand the concept clearly - but, looking around today, I'd have to say the manual needs updating. What makes you think only 'religious' people are capable of humanistarianism? Most people don't need a book to differentiate between right and wrong.

J.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Nice point Whammy.

I do see that natural rights could be seen as a form of moral absolutism.

However is it correct to impose even natural rights upon others?

I believe that natural rights are the ultimate set of rights that must be inherent to mankind. However who agrees with me? Will a radical islamist agree with me?


Sincere Thanks! I worked for it


But we agree as did the founding Fathers of the USA that they are "inalienable" rights. Ha you are English right? Sorry- but the English were imposing taxes on us with out representation. So we accused them of violating our God given natural rights.



Indubitably, a very interesting point though. Would I consider freedom and natural rights to be an absolutely moral set of rights? I think they do, but at the same time those are some of the only things I belive ought to be universally held. Perhaps youre right, perhaps I am an absolutist.

But I still get lost in the details... Would absolutism not lead to people seeking to impose their will upon others? Would absolute belief in pro-life stances not lead to forcing your idea of morality onto a woman?


Hey man we all get lost in the details. Who is perfect? No one but God in my view. All I am saying is there are objective standards - We don't always get it right - we are affected by self interest and greed etc etc. - But when we really try to- we can feel justice somehow internally.

It is somehow natural and yet evolution does not explain it. Evolution says we fight to survive. Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even if it is not to our advantage.

Ok - off to eat shark steak now ~~~~~~~~~~~~~/\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




[edit on 5/29/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Well, I don't know what's going on here, but I'm still waiting to hear back from Vagabond...

There are several things you've said here which I would like to address.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Well, since this debate is not happening apparently, here is some of the stuff you've said in this thread that I find to be wrong.



Disagreements over morals does not make them relative at all. The morals do not change because mens perceptions of them do.


Perceptions are what create morals, Whammy. This is how morals are made in the first place.



Because you believe that the woman has an absolute moral right to control her own body. If your morality were relative you would not be offended by it at all, you would say oh whatever... its no skin off my nose


But Whammy, you are appealing to OUR morals and making them appear to be 'absolute', when in fact, they are the morals which you and I have accepted through our lives.



For you to say absolutism or anything is wrong - then you are saying that you know what is right - aren't you?.


No Whammy, not wrong, but INACCURATE. You are confusing the 2 words there. And I can say this because it's according to MY morals and beliefs.



Also consider this ss. For a relativist to have an opinion about anything you have to smuggle the objective moral law in the back door. How can you say that A is better than B if you do not appeal to standard of truth? What does "better" mean?


Wrong again Whammy. Firstly, you should clarify what you mean by 'objective moral standard'. Secondly, people view right and wrong by the morals they learn through life and influences. You are bridging a gap that is not crossable.



Is relativism right? Or is relativism just relative? Only to a relativist I guess.
Moral Relativism is circular logic.


Once again, Whammy, you are confusing 'right' with accuracy.



Relativism truly ends up with no morality at all - pure preferences.


Based off of what people are taught and what they learn through various factors of growing up.



Communism is founded on it


No, Whammy, it's not. I could just as easily say the same thing about your moral absolutism views, feeling that you are right and have 'discovered' the right ways and morals in the universe forces you to assume that anybody who disagrees with you is wrong or evil. Communism takes people's freedoms by forcing them to behave or act in a certain way developed by oppressors who share the same type of belief system you do.

Without morals being relative, everyone in the world might as well have believed that Hitler's ways were right, but it's moral relativism that stopped him. Differing beliefs. It's moral relativism that keeps the world honest, not absolutism, because, after all, who determines what the absolutes will be?

Would you have the same views about Communism if you were a Chinese man living in China? Or is anybody who supports their societal structure wrong, or just wrong in your eyes?



Lying is immoral and murder is immoral. That's not an opinion but a fact. Sorry relativists - that never changes. There's not situation that makes lying moral .


According to who's morals? Once again, Whammy, you are trying to appeal to my own to use that as a means of getting me to agree that the above statement is correct when it is in fact, not. That is, in fact, an opinion, and NOT a fact.



It is always relativism that causes despotism. If there are no absolute morals then morality is subject to personal opinion.


Once again, according to who's morals? It is people who view THEIR views above others, as you are showing here Whammy, who are responsible for forcing their views upon others.



If the government passed a law that forces women to have rape babies - Then by the logic you used against me - it is it wrong for you to shout about forcing women to have rape babies. After all you would be trying to force your view on others. We can't have that.


You are again trying to appeal to my morals which I have learned over time as to what I feel are the more appropriate ways to act.

Would others think US crazy for having ___________ illegal? (Fill in SEVERAL things here). You betcha.



In fact it is the objective Moral Law that both you and I are both appealing to make that judgement.


Perhaps you should correct that to say 'some of the shared moral views we have...'



It is somehow natural and yet evolution does not explain it. Evolution says we fight to survive. Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even if it is not to our advantage.


Morality was ALSO created and passed along to help with survival.

Think of a Mexican apple thief. He's taught that stealing is wrong so that society can continue to function and people's apples and food and other supplies don't just continue to get taken by others, and those beliefs are passed along through generations. Morals are created so that society and civilization can function.

Morals are not 'discovered' like you have been trying to convince others of, they are not floating in the air waiting for you to find them, and then forcing you to wait for the rest of the world to catch up. There are different ways to go about, this is where different cultures come in. Different ways to evolve and handle things are real.

'Trounced' huh? Yeah right.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join