PDA

View Full Version : Oh my god! (re: gays)


Scotso
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:33 AM
One of my HOMOSEXUAL friends just told me that gay people probably go to hell since that is what the bible says.

He says that while God created him gay (because he didn't make the choice) he is supposed to resist temptation. Well, this guy continues to preach to me saying that since I haven't accepted Jesus and blah blah I am going to hell. But, he has sex with more guys than anyone I know! He's basically preaching that he is going to hell.

What a @#$%ing hypocrite! I don't see how anyone can believe this shit, let alone a GAY person!

I just don't know how to deal with this! I basically told him that any God who would punish someone for being how he created them is really @#%$ed up and not worthy of worship. I wanted to hit him but he'd probably shoot me for being a violent Jew.

Have you people had experiences like this? I just can't believe it!

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:35 AM
I'm an atheist, with good reason.

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Gay homosexuals are not the only ones going to hell. :devil: The bible says a lot of things. :rolleyes: Anyway, dont worry, if homosexuals are going based on their lifestyles, tons of other people are going, so nobody will be left alone. :lol:

skanky~skanketta
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:10 AM
muahahahaha!

u people are going to hell and i'm going to heaven cuz i'm straight.

what a load of crap. come on guys, this is stupid. some stuff from the bible is taken waaaaay out of context. live ur life the way u want.

Brαm
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:13 AM
There is no heaven. There is no hell. There is no God.

Well that's just my opinion :)

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:32 AM
I do think there is a heaven and hell though. Here is my version... By the way for those who dont know, I am formerly Paul123, FrogBurger, Ribbit and now Bunker:

OK heres the afterlife: First you see clouds and stuff and youre walking and in the distance you see the American flag. Then, if youre me, you wait in the waiting room for about 666,666,666.666 years. Then they get out your rap sheet and you have to explain what the fuck you were thinking when you did all the stupid shit you did. Then to make matters worse, they put with other people who did evil things, like Mike Tyson, Ghengis Kahn, you know you can pick them. so you feel really stupid and remorseful. Then they tell you youre new address and discharge you to your parole officer, which in my case is my wife. then they tell her your restrictions, about the electric collar you have to wear, and about not leaving the house much. once in a while you get bleacher seat to a yankee game, you know an unimportant game that nobody wants to see anyway. I dont think ive missed anything...

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:52 AM
you forgot to mention that they put the homophobes with the sexually frustrated gays, Paul.

And I'm sure they'll make me listen to Mariah Carey every day

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:53 AM
you forgot to mention that they put the homophobes with the sexually frustrated gays, Paul.

And I'm sure they'll make me listen to Mariah Carey every day

Oh yeah, I'll edit my post now. Oh no, they got mariah carey there too? oh shit, im not going then. do we have to watch her on video?

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 11:59 AM
Oh yeah, I'll edit my post now. Oh no, they got mariah carey there too? oh shit, im not going then. do we have to watch her on video?

That's it! I'm turning my life around, I'll behave from now on, will do everything the bible says.

Dava
Jan 7th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Oh Im going to hell...I give into many other temptations besides shagging men so Im doomed...

Volcana
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:20 PM
One of my HOMOSEXUAL friends just told me that gay people probably go to hell since that is what the bible says.

He says that while God created him gay (because he didn't make the choice) he is supposed to resist temptation. Well, this guy continues to preach to me saying that since I haven't accepted Jesus and blah blah I am going to hell. But, he has sex with more guys than anyone I know! He's basically preaching that he is going to hell.

What a @#$%ing hypocrite! I don't see how anyone can believe this shit, let alone a GAY person!

I just don't know how to deal with this! I basically told him that any God who would punish someone for being how he created them is really @#%$ed up and not worthy of worship. I wanted to hit him but he'd probably shoot me for being a violent Jew.

Have you people had experiences like this? I just can't believe it!It's a tough experience, but stop and think how much more it must suck to be him. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people carrying around a lot of self-hatred in the world. And they're are a lot of people who've been brought up to hate themselves. If you got all the way through that 'racial bias test' in another thread, you may have noted that their stats say, for example, that about 50% of Blacks are pro-White. 'Self-Hating Jew' is practically a buzzword. Is it such a shock their would be self-hating gays?

Overcoming belief is a VERY difficult process. Most people ultimately live in accordance with beliefs they KNOW to be inaacurate, rather than go through all the cognitive dissonance required to change those beliefs. Changing a belief is painful.

Monica_Rules
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:22 PM
I'm an atheist, with good reason.
Me too:worship:

"Sluggy"
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:22 PM
which belief system do you espouse Volcana?

SilK
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Have you people had experiences like this? I just can't believe it!

I had this friend who studied theology, and he was in the believe that he was an 'indigo child' (http://www.indigochild.com/). With his believe, he said he was allowed to do everything God has forbid him to do, because he was a 'chosen one'. :eek:

Basically, he had free and casual sex all the time. He did all sorts of drugs and he preached how he would be forgiven for all this. Oooh, and he also said he wasn't gay... He wasn't gay because gay people would indeed, burn in hell. He was set on this earth to provide us all with the word of God, and prove that he forgives us all... And this is just a small bit of all the nonsense he told. I couldn't believe him. He just took a term, made it his own and lived his life by his own rulez, claiming God wanted it this way! :rolleyes:

AjdeNate!
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:42 PM
<-- Agnostic pragmatist.

I give into temptation.
I have no remorse.
No regrets.

alexusjonesfan
Jan 7th, 2005, 03:56 PM
I think it's called internalized heterosexism

Martian Willow
Jan 7th, 2005, 04:39 PM
I'm an atheist, with good reason.

How is that relevant? :)

tennisIlove09
Jan 7th, 2005, 04:55 PM
I am who I am. If there is a God, which I do believe there is, he wouldn't have made me who I am if he didn't love and accept me.

Scotso
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:22 PM
That's what I think, tennisilove.

alfajeffster
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Ask him where it says in the bible that gays are going to hell, chapter and verse, and when and if he provides such evidence, read it and tell me what you think those words mean.

alfajeffster
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:27 PM
P.S.- which bible?

James
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Ask him where it says in the bible that gays are going to hell, chapter and verse, and when and if he provides such evidence, read it and tell me what you think those words mean.
Most of the bible is open for interpretation anyway. I don't believe in gays going to hell, isn't God supposed to love all his children equally, despite their shortcomings?

andrew_uk
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:45 PM
James your not implying that gays are people with shortcomings are you?! :lol:

James
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:52 PM
James your not implying that gays are people with shortcomings are you?! :lol:
:lol: I didn't even see you could actually interpret it like that. I have to be more careful with my wording I guess.

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 08:59 PM
How is that relevant? :)

just showing there's a way out of those irrational situations and dilemmas :D

Martian Willow
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:06 PM
just showing there's a way out of those irrational situations and dilemmas :D

By replacing them with more irrational situations and dilemmas. :)

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:08 PM
By replacing them with more irrational situations and dilemmas. :)

such as?

Martian Willow
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:20 PM
Moral judgements leading you to deny morality.

gentenaire
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Moral judgements leading you to deny morality.

eh? Different morals doesn't mean lack of morals. Morals not based on the interpretation of an old book doesn't mean bad morals, quite the contrary. Why do so many people believe morals can't exist without religion? Both are human inventions after all. You can choose to have neither, to have both, or to have just one of the two.

timray
Jan 7th, 2005, 09:27 PM
I donít know which bible you guys have read, but I do know that in the old testimony there was a story,Or implication of one, about a gay relationship between David and Jonathan:

When he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him away that day, and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, and even his armor and bow and girdle

Martian Willow
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:14 PM
eh? Different morals doesn't mean lack of morals. Morals not based on the interpretation of an old book doesn't mean bad morals, quite the contrary. Why do so many people believe morals can't exist without religion? Both are human inventions after all. You can choose to have neither, to have both, or to have just one of the two.

We weren't talking about religion. The point is, atheism is not an alternative to religion, it's an alternative to theism. The alternative to religion is agnosticism.

If you believe morals are a human creation, you don't believe in morals at all, so your morals can't be 'good' or 'bad'. You just don't have any. That's your dilemma. :)

*roddicksinme*
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:19 PM
we will make our own little heaven if we need to :angel:

Darop.
Jan 7th, 2005, 10:51 PM
Heaven and hell dont exist people, Jesus just said they existed to make us be on our best behaviour... :rolleyes:

It's like when you tell kids that if they're not good the boogy man will get them, or whatever shit they tell kids nowadays :p

Philbo
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:00 AM
I am who I am. If there is a God, which I do believe there is, he wouldn't have made me who I am if he didn't love and accept me.
That sums it up perfectly.

The problem with humans - including your friend melissatorres is that most people are too lazy to form their own beliefs. We are all so thirsty to be told what to think because it saves us the trouble of looking at everything around us and deciding what WE EACH feel is our own truth - in this case about gods feelings towards gays. We just want to be told what to think and we'll believe. This is the basic reason why organised religions have been succesful. Just tell em what to think and the people will come.

Your friend is just too lazy to go within himself to find out what god feels about gays. I believe rather than read a book that all you need to do is go within yourself and pray or commune with the higher powere in whatever way you do it, and your inner voice is the only voice you'll ever need. YOur inner conscience is your connection to god imo.

ANd from as young as I can remember being worried about being gay and being punished etc, my inner voice has always said exactly what tennisilove said.

YOur friend is just adopting other people beliefs cuz its easier than making his own.

Gallofa
Jan 8th, 2005, 01:35 AM
Ask him where it says in the bible that gays are going to hell, chapter and verse, and when and if he provides such evidence, read it and tell me what you think those words mean. Well, I guess the reference would be from Genesis 18:16 through to the end of chapter 19.

Of interest might be this footnote:
Israelite tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-5 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis19.htm#v4)), which is therefore also known as sodomy; but according to Isaiah (Isaiah 1:9-10 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah1.htm#v9); 3:9 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah3.htm#v9)), it was a lack of social justice; Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:46-51 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/ezekiel/ezekiel16.htm#v46)) described it as a disregard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:14 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/jeremiah/jeremiah23.htm#v14)) saw it as general immorality
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis18.htm#foot6

Dave B
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:19 AM
I dated a guy who was Catholic and like that. I was only 16...and even then I was smart enough to end it quickly. I mean, how can you be with someone who hates part of himself, much less a part of you?

BTW, I grew up in the bible belt, and even with all the religious stuff I got while being out in high school, I can never imagine accepting beliefs that reject me as the way nautre/god/Allah/generic higher power made me.

Richie77
Jan 8th, 2005, 07:52 AM
That sums it up perfectly.

The problem with humans - including your friend melissatorres is that most people are too lazy to form their own beliefs. We are all so thirsty to be told what to think because it saves us the trouble of looking at everything around us and deciding what WE EACH feel is our own truth - in this case about gods feelings towards gays. We just want to be told what to think and we'll believe. This is the basic reason why organised religions have been succesful. Just tell em what to think and the people will come.

Your friend is just too lazy to go within himself to find out what god feels about gays. I believe rather than read a book that all you need to do is go within yourself and pray or commune with the higher powere in whatever way you do it, and your inner voice is the only voice you'll ever need. YOur inner conscience is your connection to god imo.

ANd from as young as I can remember being worried about being gay and being punished etc, my inner voice has always said exactly what tennisilove said.

YOur friend is just adopting other people beliefs cuz its easier than making his own.Very well said :worship:

Scott, tell your friend to re-read the four Gospels of the New Testament. When he does, he'll find that Jesus, the son of God, NEVER MENTIONED A WORD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.
Very well said :worship:

Scott, tell your friend to re-read the four Gospels of the New Testament. When he does, he'll find that Jesus (who is the Son of God) NEVER MENTIONED A WORD ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. I read through the Gospels at about the time I was finally coming to terms with being gay, and remember carefully looking through the text to see if Jesus said anything about being gay. Not a word.

I agree with Dallas...God loves me, him, and all of us for who we are, be it gay or straight.

Bacardi
Jan 8th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Well everybody that knows me, can personally back me up on this. I'm going to hell in a handbasket reguardless of if I was straight or gay. I just happen to want to make love to women on my way to hell instead of worship the cock. :tape:

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 10:16 AM
If you believe morals are a human creation, you don't believe in morals at all, so your morals can't be 'good' or 'bad'. You just don't have any. That's your dilemma. :)

Rubbish! I beleive in many human creations! I believe trains and cars exist, I believe certains laws are necessary in order to have a decent and safe society, I believe morals are necessary to make certain judgements, I believe you aren't born with morals, but learn morals from your parents and in school. If God created morals, like you claim, which God then? The God Christians believe in or the one Muslims believe in? And why Christian morals different from Muslim morals then, if they weren't created by humans?
Do animals have morals?

Mariangelina
Jan 8th, 2005, 12:42 PM
I think Czechfan is right, and I personally feel that trying to deny or change my sexual orientation would be a sin, a real insult to God. It's not a good idea to go around screwing random people- it can be emotionally damaging to them, you can make them sick, and how fun can it be if you barely know them? That applies whether you're gay or straight. I don't think it earns you brownie points. :lol: But I believe that if God had not wanted us to use our sexuality at all, we wouldn't have it. Saying sex is evil makes about as much sense to me as anorexics who feel eating any more than they need to survive is evil and makes them a bad person.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Rubbish! I beleive in many human creations! I believe trains and cars exist, I believe certains laws are necessary in order to have a decent and safe society, I believe morals are necessary to make certain judgements, I believe you aren't born with morals, but learn morals from your parents and in school. If God created morals, like you claim, which God then? The God Christians believe in or the one Muslims believe in? And why Christian morals different from Muslim morals then, if they weren't created by humans?
Do animals have morals?

Would you care to explain the difference between morals and opinions? Thanks.

And may I humbly suggest you look up the phrases 'ethical subjectivism' and 'moral realism' before making yourself look silly. :)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 03:49 PM
Would you care to explain the difference between morals and opinions? Thanks.

And may I humbly suggest you look up the phrases 'ethical subjectivism' and 'moral realism' before making yourself look silly. :)

Would you just answer my questions instead of throwing around -ism words at random? Besides, I'm sure you know the difference between morals and opinions, no need to explain them.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Would you just answer my questions instead of throwing around -ism words at random? Besides, I'm sure you know the difference between morals and opinions, no need to explain them.

I don't think your questions are relevant, because, as I already said, we're not talking about religions. Religions make statements about the nature of god; they have no bearing on whether god exists or not. The fact that you disagree with a books statements about god doesn't mean there is no god. That is not a logical step.

Of course I know the difference between morals and opinions. I'm a moral realist. I'm asking you if you do, because you seem to be unaware that the statement 'morals are human inventions' effectively reduces them to the level of opinions. :)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 04:22 PM
I The fact that you disagree with a books statements about god doesn't mean there is no god. That is not a logical step.
It is a logical step, considering this particular book is supposed to be god's word. If you don't believe god's words, it's not a big step not to believe in god altogether.

And so what if morals are reduced to the level of opinions (what level are they otherwise on?), that still doens't mean I don't have morals.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:13 PM
It is a logical step, considering this particular book is supposed to be god's word. If you don't believe god's words, it's not a big step not to believe in god altogether.

The logical step, if you don't agree with them, is to disbelieve they are gods words. If I say people from New Zealand are green, and you don't think people from New Zealand would be green, does that logically lead you to believe a) New Zealand doesn't exist, b) there are no people in New Zealand or c) I'm not a reliable source of information about the nature of people from New Zealand?

And so what if morals are reduced to the level of opinions (what level are they otherwise on?), that still doens't mean I don't have morals.

Yes, it does. :) That doesn't mean you don't indulge in behaviour people would generally consider to be moral. If you say "I don't like cheese" and I say "I like cheese", we haven't disagreed about about anything, because we have simply described our attitudes to cheese. If you say "homophobia is bad" and I say "homophobia is good", we have disagreed about the nature of homophobia. The latter pair are moral statements. The former are not. You are saying there is no difference between them. Ergo, there are no moral statements, and no morals.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:22 PM
The logical step, if you don't agree with them, is to disbelieve they are gods words. If I say people from New Zealand are green, and you don't think people from New Zealand would be green, does that logically lead you to believe a) New Zealand doesn't exist, b) there are no people in New Zealand or c) I'm not a reliable source of information about the nature of people from New Zealand?
Whether you think it's logical or not, it IS the step I took! And I'm not the only one.


Yes, it does. :) That doesn't mean you don't indulge in behaviour people would generally consider to be moral. If you say "I don't like cheese" and I say "I like cheese", we haven't disagreed about about anything, because we have simply described our attitudes to cheese. If you say "homophobia is bad" and I say "homophobia is good", we have disagreed about the nature of homophobia. The latter pair are moral statements. The former are not. You are saying there is no difference between them. Ergo, there are no moral statements, and no morals.
Where did I say there is no difference between them?
Besides, even they were, your logic is wrong. If there are no morals and morals and opinions are the same, then there are no opinions either.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 05:42 PM
Whether you think it's logical or not, it IS the step I took! And I'm not the only one.

I know you're not. It's a common logical error amongst atheists.

Where did I say there is no difference between them?
Besides, even they were, your logic is wrong. If there are no morals and morals and opinions are the same, then there are no opinions either.

:lol: I thought I'd broken it down as simply as I could. Words have meanings. If morals and opinions are the same, the word 'moral' becomes meaningless. See? :)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 06:03 PM
I know you're not. It's a common logical error amongst atheists.

I see it's as a typical -not theological but relgious science (don't know the correct English term - trying to say atheism is a sort of mono-theistic religion, while in fact, atheist simply don't think about god at all. I don't feel like going so deep into things that hold zero interest to me.


:lol: I thought I'd broken it down as simply as I could. Words have meanings. If morals and opinions are the same, the word 'moral' becomes meaningless. See? :)

From a purely logical mathematical sense, that's not true. Why should moral become meaningless and not the word opinion?
But never mind, this is purely theoretical since morals aren't thes ame as opinions. You made that assumption, not me. My parents taught me morals, they didn't teach opinions.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 08:14 PM
"I like cheese." < - This statement refers only to my feelings towards cheese. I am the 'subject', therefore this is a 'subjective' statement. You cannot disagree with a subjective statement. A subjective statement can never be 'wrong'. You may say, "I dislike cheese". But then you're just talking about yourself. You haven't contradicted me.

"The sky is green." < - This statement refers to an aspect of the world independent of me, the subject. It refers to the sky, which is the 'object'. It is an 'objective' statement. Clearly, we can see that such statements can be 'wrong'. You may say, "the sky is blue". We have disagreed.

"Murder is good." < - Is this a subjective or objective statement? Does it say "I like murder", in which case you can't disagree with it, or does it say "murder, as an act independent of me, is intrinsically good"? In which case, you may disagree and say, "no, murder is bad". We are disagreeing about a quality of murder, which is known as it's 'moral' quality.

Do you understand so far? :)

Gallofa
Jan 8th, 2005, 09:01 PM
I think your logic is very strong, Willow, but the fact remains that whether an issue is considered to be moral or not is attained simply by dividing the World between good and bad.

Substitute "I like cheese" for "Cheese is good" and you have a moral issue.

Is it truly good? Does cheese make people more saintly? Are those that do not eat cheese sinners?

This might sound stupid, now substitute "cheese" for "alcohol" or for "pork" and you have a whole religion thinking "pork is bad" as a moral issue. And it is in fact what you would call a "subjective" statement.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 09:37 PM
I think your logic is very strong, Willow, but the fact remains that whether an issue is considered to be moral or not is attained simply by dividing the World between good and bad.

Substitute "I like cheese" for "Cheese is good" and you have a moral issue.

Is it truly good? Does cheese make people more saintly? Are those that do not eat cheese sinners?

This might sound stupid, now substitute "cheese" for "alcohol" or for "pork" and you have a whole religion thinking "pork is bad" as a moral issue. And it is in fact what you would call a "subjective" statement.

Good and bad are qualities that we attach to objects. 'Pork is bad' is an objective statement, I can agree or disagree with it if I want. Depends whether it's free-range or not. :p

Gallofa
Jan 8th, 2005, 10:00 PM
It is the concept of goodness/badness (right/wrong) that turns the agreeing/disagreeing you mention into a moral issue.

Morality is based on the concept of what is good/right and what isn't. Human action, behaviour or character are moral when they are in agreement with the standard of what is good/right.

Now a religious person would say this standard comes from God. A non-religious person would say this standard comes from society. And if it comes from society, it is in fact public consensus or opinion that drives morality.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 10:53 PM
Is it truly good? Does cheese make people more saintly? Are those that do not eat cheese sinners? .

Oh, I certainly think so ;) You must have a few screws loose if you don't like cheese? ;)


mmmmmmm, cheese....getting hungry!

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 10:59 PM
It is the concept of goodness/badness (right/wrong) that turns the agreeing/disagreeing you mention into a moral issue.

Morality is based on the concept of what is good/right and what isn't. Human action, behaviour or character are moral when they are in agreement with the standard of what is good/right.

That's basically right, but I'm saying the idea of goodness/badness only makes sense if it's a quality of the object being discussed. If 'I think this is wrong' is entirely subjective, it's no different from 'I don't like this'. The standard of what is good/right has to be objective, or it's not a standard at all.

Now a religious person would say this standard comes from God. A non-religious person would say this standard comes from society. And if it comes from society, it is in fact public consensus or opinion that drives morality.

The idea that the standard is created by society - conventionalism - is just a form of subjectivism in the end. The problem with it is anyone who challenges the morals of their society is, logically, in the wrong, morally. Even if they're challenging society's acceptance of slavery or homophobia. And a society can never improve morally, because society is always the standard.

:)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
Now a religious person would say this standard comes from God. A non-religious person would say this standard comes from society. And if it comes from society, it is in fact public consensus or opinion that drives morality.

A religious person has determined for himself where the standard comes from, same with non-religious persons. This means that a religious person, by definition, will consider the non-religious standard impossible and illogical. You can not look at atheism from a religous point of view because it's flawed and biased from the beginning. Of course, the same can be said the other way around.

Willow, the explanations you're giving are besides the point. I didn't bring up the whole morals/opinions issue, I never said they were the same, I don't need you to explain to me that they're not the same.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:04 PM
The problem with it is anyone who challenges the morals of their society is, logically, in the wrong, morally. Even if they're challenging society's acceptance of slavery or homophobia. And a society can never improve morally, because society is always the standard.

:)

I disagree. Gays have become morally accepted by the majority these days. 20 years ago, homophobia was the standard, now homophobia is considered morally wrong. Morals change, society changes.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Willow, the explanations you're giving are besides the point. I didn't bring up the whole morals/opinions issue, I never said they were the same, I don't need you to explain to me that they're not the same.

You said morals are a human invention. I am suggesting that the logical corollary is that they are the same as opinions. :)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:17 PM
You said morals are a human invention. I am suggesting that the logical corollary is that they are the same as opinions. :)

and you are suggesting it by explaining the difference between morals and opinions...

I still fail to see any proof that because morals are a human invention, they're the same as opinions.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:25 PM
If god is the one who taught us morals, at one point in evolution did he start?

If the basis for our morals are the ten comandments, does this mean that people before that time had absolutely no morals and just killed each other at random, had no feelings for the suffering of others?

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:27 PM
and you are suggesting it by explaining the difference between morals and opinions...

I still fail to see any proof that because morals are a human invention, they're the same as opinions.

In order for them to be different from opinions, they would have to exist independently from humans.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:30 PM
If god is the one who taught us morals, at one point in evolution did he start?

At the point when humans became capable of perceiving the moral qualities that exist independently from them. I would suggest this is also the point at which they became humans. :)

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:33 PM
In order for them to be different from opinions, they would have to exist independently from humans.

Why is that? That's YOUR definition based on YOUR background view. It's not an objective independent definition of morality, but one based on the conviction that morals are a godly phenomenon.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:36 PM
At the point when humans became capable of perceiving the moral qualities that exist independently from them. I would suggest this is also the point at which they became humans. :)

I agree on that, I'd also situate the start around that time. I don't get the whole 'indepedently' stuff though. I just think they started realising that life was a lot easier for everyone if they stopped killing eachother, stopped stealing from eachother. Experience taught them that adn so they turned it into general rules that were from then on passed from generation to generation.

gentenaire
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:41 PM
I'm off to bed now, will continue this tomorrow evening.

Martian Willow
Jan 8th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Why is that? That's YOUR definition based on YOUR background view. It's not an objective independent definition of morality, but one based on the conviction that morals are a godly phenomenon.

I don't have a conviction that morals are a godly phenomenomenomenon. I have a conviction that they are an objective phenomenon. I arrived at this conviction after logical analysis of the subjectivist view which is my background. :)

azza
Jan 9th, 2005, 02:38 AM
Mary Magdalen would be in hell right now since she is a pristitude

JenFan75
Jan 9th, 2005, 02:41 AM
Religeon is annoying.

moby
Jan 9th, 2005, 08:09 AM
I don't have a conviction that morals are a godly phenomenomenomenon. I have a conviction that they are an objective phenomenon. I arrived at this conviction after logical analysis of the subjectivist view which is my background. :)
But Willow, if you do subscribe to a subjectivist view, then you cannot have any convictions. For subjectivism essentially demonstrates a belief that there is uncertainty in all knowledge (Paradoxically, it questions even the existence of subjectivism itself!). Hence, you cannot and do not know for sure that morals are an objective phenomenon.

Alright, so that was just some minor quibbling over your usage of subjectivism. On to the argument about morals and opinions.

Clearly, if one agrees that morals are objective, then it follows that morals are an Ultimate Truth, and have an unyielding, unchanging quality. However since morality is mutable (note the change in public acceptance towards many controversial issues), then morals by society's standard must be subjective, and defined either by society or one's personal convictions. QED. So if you have to believe that morals are objective, you have to conclude that "morals by society's standard" are only a substitute for the true morals, and that eventually evolution will lead to our morals converging towards the accurate model (the right answer, so to speak).

Either way, I don't see how morals = opinions (which they don't obviously) would imply that morals don't exist? Perhaps you would care to explain.

NicoMary
Jan 9th, 2005, 11:34 AM
I f god exist:rolleyes: , and if god has created man on earth:rolleyes: , he also has created the feeling of LOVE:worship: , Love has no sex and if jesus didn't wanted gay people couple, he wouldn't have permit LOVE between two same sex people...


Whatever god doesn't exist:angel: , and your only goal in your life is to be happy:) so enjoy...in anyway:wavey:

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 04:51 PM
But Willow, if you do subscribe to a subjectivist view, then you cannot have any convictions. For subjectivism essentially demonstrates a belief that there is uncertainty in all knowledge (Paradoxically, it questions even the existence of subjectivism itself!). Hence, you cannot and do not know for sure that morals are an objective phenomenon.

Alright, so that was just some minor quibbling over your usage of subjectivism. On to the argument about morals and opinions.

Clearly, if one agrees that morals are objective, then it follows that morals are an Ultimate Truth, and have an unyielding, unchanging quality. However since morality is mutable (note the change in public acceptance towards many controversial issues), then morals by society's standard must be subjective, and defined either by society or one's personal convictions. QED. So if you have to believe that morals are objective, you have to conclude that "morals by society's standard" are only a substitute for the true morals, and that eventually evolution will lead to our morals converging towards the accurate model (the right answer, so to speak).

The way I think about it is this: we are all in the same room, and we're all trying to guess the temperature of the room. But, none of us has a thermometer, so we can never know the accuracy of our guesses. Inevitably, there would be a wide range of guesses. But that doesn't prove the room doesn't have a temperature, which seems to be the subjectivist view.

It might be that a lot of peoples guesses converge around a particular temperature, and that average guess might change over a period of time, perhaps because some people are able to influence other peoples guesses, rightly or wrongly. That doesn't mean the temperature of the room has changed.

I could include other cultural factors, but I think you get the idea. :)

Either way, I don't see how morals = opinions (which they don't obviously) would imply that morals don't exist? Perhaps you would care to explain.

I think 'preferences' might have been a better word than 'opinions', but it seems a bit late to admit that now. :o If moral judgements can be reduced to "I like this" and "I don't like that", they don't say anything about the thing being judged. The idea of a moral judgement becomes meaningless. It seems kind of obvious to me, but I don't know how to explain it any more simply. If someone says "I like murder" or "I like exterminating the Jews", that's just their preference, and it's no 'better' or 'worse' than yours. There is nothing to judge these preferences by, other than whether you prefer them or not. :)

moby
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:12 PM
I'm feeling woozy right now (It's 1am here, so I have to get to sleep after this post)

The way I think about it is this: we are all in the same room, and we're all trying to guess the temperature of the room. But, none of us has a thermometer, so we can never know the accuracy of our guesses. Inevitably, there would be a wide range of guesses. But that doesn't prove the room doesn't have a temperature, which seems to be the subjectivist view.

It might be that a lot of peoples guesses converge around a particular temperature, and that average guess might change over a period of time, perhaps because some people are able to influence other peoples guesses, rightly or wrongly. That doesn't mean the temperature of the room has changed.

I could include other cultural factors, but I think you get the idea. :):yeah: No problem here. I understand that you think that there exists an appropriate response to every situation. I'd agree with that, but it is rather unfortunate that this response may go against common sense, doesnt it? On issues that are split 50-50 amongst the public, is it right to impose a certain fixed procedure that is antithetical to what half the population believes? This is not to say that utilitarianism is right either, but surely there must be a happy medium.

I think 'preferences' might have been a better word than 'opinions', but it seems a bit late to admit that now. :o If moral judgements can be reduced to "I like this" and "I don't like that", they don't say anything about the thing being judged. The idea of a moral judgement becomes meaningless. It seems kind of obvious to me, but I don't know how to explain it any more simply. If someone says "I like murder" or "I like exterminating the Jews", that's just their preference, and it's no 'better' or 'worse' than yours. There is nothing to judge these preferences by, other than whether you prefer them or not. :)
It's ok, I'm not going to rag you on your choice of words. I think the key that distinguishes morals from any other types of preferences is its repercussions - the very simple fact that it has an effect on other people, and passes a judgment on their actions and behaviour. A statement like "John is a horrible person" would be a moral statement then.

gentenaire
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:15 PM
If moral judgements can be reduced to "I like this" and "I don't like that", they don't say anything about the thing being judged. The idea of a moral judgement becomes meaningless.

Why are moral judgements reduced to something you like or don't like if they're human inventions? That would be true if I were that particular human who invented morals, but I'm not. My opinions are my own, my morals OTOH aren't my own. I think about certain things and then form an opinion, my morals don't come from thinking certain things through, they come from my upbringing, from what I was taught, they entered my mind unconsciously, unlike opinions. I can have opinions on matters based on my morals. The morals were there first, the opinions came later. After applying my moral viewpoint on certain situations, I come to form an opinion about the situation.


(BTW, Willow, I can't rep you, but just want to clarify that I don't consider this a fight at all, it's a discussion and I love discussions)

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Why are moral judgements reduced to something you like or don't like if they're human inventions? That would be true if I were that particular human who invented morals, but I'm not. My opinions are my own, my morals OTOH aren't my own. I think about certain things and then form an opinion, my morals don't come from thinking certain things through, they come from my upbringing, from what I was taught, they entered my mind unconsciously, unlike opinions. I can have opinions on matters based on my morals. The morals were there first, the opinions came later. After applying my moral viewpoint on certain situations, I come to form an opinion about the situation.

I've offered two possibilities of what morals might be. They either describe a preference, or an intrinsic quality of an object/action. What else could they be? :shrug:

gentenaire
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:33 PM
I've offered two possibilities of what morals might be. They either describe a preference, or an intrinsic quality of an object/action. What else could they be? :shrug:

I don't the first one is a real possibility, as for the second, why can't this intrinsic quality come from humans? When you say the sky is blue, some human must have first made that description before others could know that that particular colour is blue.

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:44 PM
I don't the first one is a real possibility, as for the second, why can't this intrinsic quality come from humans? When you say the sky is blue, some human must have first made that description before others could know that that particular colour is blue.

Because disagreeing with the human who said the sky was blue wouldn't make you wrong, if the sky didn't actually possess the quality of blueness. You could say it was green if you like. How could one human invent a quality of something, and suddenly everyone else can percieve it too? If you're going to say people decided it was generally preferable to think of the sky as blue, we're back to conventionalism, it's just a preference held by lots of people.

gentenaire
Jan 9th, 2005, 05:51 PM
but if morals are in intrinsic quality of an object, that means it's a fixed quality, no disussion possible. Then how do you explain different morals? Who's right and who's wrong? Some say homosexuality is bad, some say it's good. If it's an intrinsic quality, there should be no discussion about whether it's good or bad, it should be clear to everyone.

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 07:43 PM
but if morals are in intrinsic quality of an object, that means it's a fixed quality, no disussion possible. Then how do you explain different morals? Who's right and who's wrong? Some say homosexuality is bad, some say it's good. If it's an intrinsic quality, there should be no discussion about whether it's good or bad, it should be clear to everyone.

Because nobody has a thermometer. :)

gentenaire
Jan 9th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Because nobody has a thermometer. :)

So it's humans who gave a moral its value. It's humans who decided what's good, what's bad.

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 08:35 PM
So it's humans who gave a moral its value. It's humans who decided what's good, what's bad.

No, we're just able to perceive it.

gentenaire
Jan 9th, 2005, 09:08 PM
No, we're just able to perceive it.

If it's something we percieve, we'd be able to have morals without ever communicating with anybody else. When you acquiered the moral, "murder is bad", was it because you felt something, some inner vibe, and suddenly realised it was bad, or was it because your parents, in school, in the media you'd read murder was bad?

And if a moral is an intristic value, you still haven't explained how an object or act obtained said value. There's a scientific explanation as to why the sky is blue, can you find one to explain that muder is bad? Or rather, that the act of murder has a moral value, something the sky hasn't?

Martian Willow
Jan 9th, 2005, 10:57 PM
If it's something we percieve, we'd be able to have morals without ever communicating with anybody else. When you acquiered the moral, "murder is bad", was it because you felt something, some inner vibe, and suddenly realised it was bad, or was it because your parents, in school, in the media you'd read murder was bad?

I would say the former. That's what the conscience does. It's like a sense.

And if a moral is an intristic value, you still haven't explained how an object or act obtained said value. There's a scientific explanation as to why the sky is blue, can you find one to explain that muder is bad? Or rather, that the act of murder has a moral value, something the sky hasn't?

I can't give a scientific explanation, because these are metaphysical or philosophical questions. But they can be investigated rationally. :)

moby
Jan 10th, 2005, 12:44 AM
I would say the former. That's what the conscience does. It's like a sense.
Conscience is a selfish quality, a sort of "Do as you would be done by" attitude. It is not surprising then that the actions/crimes whose response that we most easily agree on are those of murder, theft etc. because we all are equally vulnerable to such crimes. On the other hand issues like abortion and homosexuality receive polarising responses precisely because the issues do not affect all in the same way.

Conscience is, at its very heart, a human quality, would you not say? Not a particularly accurate one. To borrow from Kant, we view the world through our own rose-tinted glasses. Ultimately, if we cannot know the "real temperature" to use your analogy, then the existence of such a "real temperature" is secondary as it cannot be used to resolve problems.

Btw, I'm trying to reconcile your two arguments. ;)