Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
Loony BoB's a newbie! :mad2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagensyg
As far as I'm concerned, people can believe what they want. They can disagree with what I do if they wish to, it's not going to stop me from doing it and it's possible that I might disagree with something that they do, too!
I'm afraid to answer because Roto's just gonna dominate me. :crying2:
However, I'll try to answer the side topic as best as I can: I don't think religion should influence peoples' morals, although it's pretty obvious that religion does influence it here in Texas :mad:. I think morals should come from inside yourself and what your perspective, brain, and heart suggest. For instance, my family is very protestant and they feel that being gay or bisexual is morally wrong. Why? Because they're afraid of non-heterosexuality because the bible says it's it a bad thing. I think listening to the bible is wrong (in this situation) because it's like you're letting the bible speak for you. People shouldn't let religion influence their morals. They should let their opinions and feelings influence them.
If religion doesn't influence your morals then what good is it? A good book to read when you're bored?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone
All told belief doesn't necessarily have to be logical, especially with respect to morality. Morality is derived mainly from cultural background. What is culturally acceptable for one group and culturally unacceptable for another can be equally ridiculous, illogical and still be a moral belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
I agree with this. However I also think that it is justifiable to say that, in Roto's opinion, that belief is stupid. If one person can have a belief another person can also have a belief. So to Roto, it is stupid. He is just as much entitled to his belief as Evastio is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Mullet
Hooray moral relativism!
The important aspect to look at here, with respect to where this whole thing started, is the context of what everyone said. Evastio said he thought homosexual sex was wrong. Roto said that was a stupid thing to think. Roto never called Evastio stupid, and Evastio never specifically suggested Roto13 was a bad person. Even so, expressing some of those opinions can end up being very hurtful to people to hold them. Within the context of the rules of EoFF (our own little culture? xD) it was wrong for both of them to say what they said because it demonstrated disrespect for another member or group of members.
Like FM said, it's all relative. Some people believe sex before marriage is morally wrong and some people think that is stupid. It all depends on what stances you yourself take on issues as to how stupid someones elses stance on same issues are or not. Anything can seem stupid and almost anything will have some form of justification that people will buy in to and others won't. I don't really care.
I was only using sexuality as an example. That doesn't mean that I think the whole bible wrong. There are many parts that I agree with. Sorry. Didn't specify.:laughing:
Well, by this I'm assuming you are a Christian and you believe that both Testaments are true so. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone
Does it make sense to only follow some of God's rules and disregard the others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in 2Timothy 3:16
Sorry to combat you like this Hambone.
This needs emphasis, cause I'm still gonna convert Evastio's Brawl screenshots to JPEGs for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
*Feels stupid* :crying2:
Let's see...yes?
moral relativism is like that king of the hill episode where the soccer coach is like 'we've already got the tie, no need to hurt anyone's feelings'
I dunno. I like to think the answer is "no", but that's when I ignore groups like The National Vanguard...
I believe, for example, that fighting is wrong. I don't feel good when I hurt people, even in self defense, and so I will try very hard not to get into physical fights. Sometimes I make the hypothesis that I feel so strongly against fighting that despite a 'valid' reason in terms of my personal morality (ie helping a friend), I'll still feel like crap after.
A lot of other people fight. There are lots of people who fight for sport. That, to me, is the dynamic opposite of what I personally believe in. However I don't feel morally outraged. In fact I will probably watch people fight. Then again this might not be a fair comparison because sport fighting != self defense fighting or aggressive assault fighting.
The point however, is that there should be moral 'truths' you believe in that aren't so important as to be objectively true, for all intents and purposes. I'm a subjectivist (moral), so virtually everything I believe in is just something I believe in. If however you think objective truths exists (moral truths), you have to give a rational basis for it. "Because I think so" is not a good enough reason because I could "think" the opposite and we can't both be right. "Because I (Roto13) think so" is equally pointless, unless you can illustrate why you are the sovereign ruler of what is moral.
Incidentally, even if God were to exist, it wouldn't be the case that just because God decreed something, it would be moral.
So, since you've denounced Religion (Faith), Give us some examples of rationally based morals. The Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pureghetto