Would the world be better off without religion?

What most moral relativists fail to take into account is the internal inconsistency in their position.

If all moral judgements are valid, then the moral judgement stated:

"Not all moral judgements are valid."

must be considered valid as well, even though it negates the premise.

It's inherently contradictory nature is glossed over by those who want to continue to maintain that there are no moral absolutes.

So they state a moral absolute that denies the existence of moral absolutes.

real life wrote:

What most moral relativists fail to take into account is the internal inconsistency in their position.

If all moral judgements are valid, then the moral judgement stated:

"Not all moral judgements are valid."

must be considered valid as well, even though it negates the premise.

It's inherently contradictory nature is glossed over by those who want to continue to maintain that there are no moral absolutes.

So they state a moral absolute that denies the existence of moral absolutes.

rl-
It is not a moral judgment to claim that there are no moral absolutes.
(BTW, I am not a moral relativist.)

What most moral relativists fail to take into account is the internal inconsistency in their position.

If all moral judgements are valid, then the moral judgement stated:

"Not all moral judgements are valid."

must be considered valid as well, even though it negates the premise.

It's inherently contradictory nature is glossed over by those who want to continue to maintain that there are no moral absolutes.

So they state a moral absolute that denies the existence of moral absolutes.

Yes, it IS funny, but maybe not why you thought it was.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

I see. If I reply, then you must be right, eh?

So if I didn't reply, would you have been wrong? (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

If that's the best you can come up with, perhaps it's better for you that you didn't address the question.

Anton is correct that with regard to a logical response to the comments of others, you are usually a run-away train.

This is a perfect example. Anton definitely did not either write or imply that any reply on your part makes you wrong--he specified the type of response you made, not the simple fact of your response. In fact, what he wrote was: Seeing you saw fit to reply as above, perhaps, the comment hit home.. His comment was specific to the manner in which you had replied, not simply the fact that you replied at all.

So, his point is well taken. Logic consistently fails you, and your arguments are so often based on a failure to understand what has been said to you, a willful refusal to understand what has been said to you, or a willful misrepresentation of what has been said to you. The question of morality always finds you sooner or later--and usually sooner than later--asserting that all moral judgments are equal in the estimation of those with whom you discuss the topic, from which you proceed to "accuse" them of believing in a moral absolute, even though the person in question very likely has denied this. However, you always insert that nonsense either without a logical basis, or with no basis at all. So for example, if i point out that moral judgments are subjective, you will leap on that to assert that i have said that all moral judgments have the same value, and that therefore, i in fact believe in moral absolutes. This is in large measure conditioned by your contempt for those who you describe as "moral relativists." However, saying that moral judgments are subjective doesn't mean that all moral judgments have equal value, it in fact means that different people value moral judgments differently--the very antithesis of a moral absolute.

Anton's got you pegged, you just go around and around in the circle of your thought, and never understand, and apparently don't try to understand, what others are saying to you.

Apparently you don't understand what I've said.

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural'?

Isn't that a bit like asking to 'hear' tactile information , or 'taste' a sound?

real life wrote:

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural'?

Isn't that a bit like asking to 'hear' tactile information , or 'taste' a sound?

You seem to require science to prove evolution but you say you don't have to prove your God and the Bible myths, by which you claim to be true?

Is there a double standard here? I know your God practices double standards so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised his followers wouldn't.

If supernatural can't be proven than the Bible can't be taken seriously. It should be taken in the same vain as a Harry Potter novel, an amusing read of make believe stories.

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

Are you asking for 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural'?

Isn't that a bit like asking to 'hear' tactile information , or 'taste' a sound?

You seem to require science to prove evolution but you say you don't have to prove your God and the Bible myths, by which you claim to be true?

Is there a double standard here? I know your God practices double standards so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised his followers wouldn't.

If supernatural can't be proven than the Bible can't be taken seriously. It should be taken in the same vain as a Harry Potter novel, an amusing read of make believe stories.

If evolutionists claim to have scientific proof of their idea, then what is wrong with asking that it be produced?

I have never claimed that there is 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural'.

It is an absurd request.

You seem to require science to prove evolution but you say you don't have to prove your God and the Bible myths, by which you claim to be true?

In your version of creation, do you claim that the universe erupted from a 'singularity' in an event known as the Big Bang?

If so, what evidence do you have of the existence of this 'singularity'?

Christians believe that God created the physical universe.

In your version of creation, do you claim that the universe erupted from a 'singularity' in an event known as the Big Bang?

If so, what evidence do you have of the existence of this 'singularity'? Where did it come from and how did it get there? Of what was it composed, and how do you know (you have evidence, right?) that this is so?