A problem with some religous views

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in order to define murder and stealing as "wrong" by our laws, we have to have some standard by which "right" is defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. I'm not aware of the need to define a moral standard in our legislative process, outside of constitutionality.

Let's look at federal law: 50+% of representatives vote, 50+% of senators vote, and signed by Prez (ibcrease to 2/3 vote if Prez vetoes). Nope, don't see any need to refer to an absolute moral standard in that law-making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it wrong to steal? If laws are in fact made as arbitrarily as you seem to think, then there must be some civilizations in which stealing is an acceptable practice, right? Can you name these cultures?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

The fact that stealing is not allowed in most cultures is irrelevant. I've said before that cultural ethics may arise along similar lines without need for their source to be God. But anyway, some cultures have allowed "stealing" based on the arbitrariness of the people. For example, the Nazis confiscated Jewish possessions in accordance with certain laws, our govt can seize private property and give it to private developers in accordance with eminent domain laws, taxes may be disproportionate to minorities and their wealth thus confiscated and given to other groups, etc. Thus, yes, if the people will it, they can have laws allowing stealing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we both agree about the above statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to have different concepts of logic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You don't know that the creator of the universe is either.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about definitions. I define God as absolute. The question is His existence as defined. If a moral standard is above God then God as defined doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define what you like as you like. Since we don't agree on the subject matter or the question there remain no grounds for discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Wanted to give you a heads-up. Kidluckee seems to be stealing your thoughts here under a post he made at 1:27pm 9/22/05 under the thread “Nietzsche’s question”


[/ QUOTE ]

???

I responded to questions posed to me in that thread and if answers are similar to anything Chez wrote, well so be it. And YOU better stop stealing silly thoughts from St. Paul.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I define unicorns as absolute. All morality is derived from unicorns.


[/ QUOTE ]

Define what you like as you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to be your approach.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Wanted to give you a heads-up. Kidluckee seems to be stealing your thoughts here under a post he made at 1:27pm 9/22/05 under the thread “Nietzsche’s question”


[/ QUOTE ]

???

I responded to questions posed to me in that thread and if answers are similar to anything Chez wrote, well so be it. And YOU better stop stealing silly thoughts from St. Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just busting stones. Similar thoughts come up all the time here - it seems, almost simultaneously. Maybe has to do with Jung.

St. Paul? He was a character, I’ll give you that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

As for the stealing issue, you know to what I was referring. Whether it be stealing or whether it be murder, there are certain things viewed universally as wrong. This is absolutely not irrelevant, but the exact point of this discussion. The cultural ethics of which you speak are based on a higher standard of what is right and wrong. That's what I will show you if you'll answer the question above.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the laws were arbitrary. A federal law requires 50% vote of each house and the Prez signature. Do you disagree? Where in there is there a reference to an absolute moral standard for the law to be passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are dodging the point of this discussion, but I am going to stick with you. How does a congressman decide to vote for or against a certain bill? Does he just flip a coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahaha!!! Are you really seriously suggesting that Congressmen vote based on an objective reference to absolute morality?????????

C'mon, dude. You have really crossed the line into delusion now!

The more you try to argue your case, the more absurd the assumptions you are forced to make. This occurs in many of these type of threads where someone appeals to some premise which is not factually sound and they are forced to invent rationalizations as they progress.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is:
if
Premise 'negative moral feelings about a religon'
then
conclusion 'being mislead about feelings, god not being good, or the religon being mistaken'

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if I understand you correctly, you're saying you have a feeling that this belief is morally repugnant. You are making no assumptions about the validity of your belief, just confirming that your belief exists.

If possibility A is true and your belief is incorrect, then both B and C could also be true, although it doesn't necessarily follow that both or either of them are true by virtue of you being tricked by your feelings.

If possibility B is true, it neither validates your belief nor invalidates the religion. Similarly, if C is true, then it doesn't necessarily follow that A is false, B is true, or vice versa.

This is my primary problem with your argument. It seems to me that you've tried to say, "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore either A, B, or C." I don't think you can logically make that step, since the statement "I feel this belief is wrong, therefore A, B, AND C" is just as possible.