My Adventures Through Theology and Beyond discussion

I suppose, but then what do you have? People make decisions based on their beliefs and their morals are set by their beliefs, so is it really possible? Your religion (and this also includes atheism) shape who you are.

Separation of church and state all the way. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?

Agreed. Religion doesn't have a place in politics. It's true that your beliefs shape who you are, and this is exactly why all politicians should also think if they support (or don't support) something because of their religion, or if there are tangible, practical reasons to support it as well.

♥ Rachel♥ wrote: "Separation of church and state all the way. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?"

I agree COMPLETELY

It is obvious that there are no moral absolutes. It is obvious because people do not agree on what is and is not moral. There isn't even one idea that everyone agrees is wrong or right. Not one. So how can it be argued that there exist moral absolutes?

Though I'm sure every person on earth would say it's wrong to kill someone.

You are wrong. History clearly shows us that everyone would not agree with that statement. I can't even believe you would make such a fatuous statement. Those of us who did learn that it is wrong to kill learned it from other people and came to the conclusion because they have empathy for others. It didn't come from God or the Bible.

But where did that empathy come from? People must have learnt from each other that it is wrong, sooner or later. And what made them change their mind?

Empathy developed through evolutionary processes. People that live in communities and have empathy for one another are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.

where did rights and justice come from?

Rights are things that societies give to people. Justice is something societies give to people.

Who gave it to the society?

People give it to the society. Because societies are made up of people for christ sakes. That's why different societies have different rights. Some countries allow people to smoke weed, others don't. Governments get together and determine what they want illegal and legal and what rights to withold and give out. This is such a ridiculously immature point you are trying to make. It is so transparent and asinine.

...What is the point? That religion must have been responsible for some of our moral code?

She is incorrectly trying to say that becuase we have morals and believe in rights, those concepts must have come from God.

But...but...butbutbut...OK :P

Just leave it? Why? Because when people can't defend their nonsense, we should just ignore it?

Who taught us the difference between right and wrong?

We learn right and wrong through experience. We get hurt then figure it is wrong to hurt others. Or we here stories of how others are hurt and decide we don't want to experience or do that to others. Or we rationalize that we should not do to others what we do not want done to use.

I don't have an answer, I'm just trying to make you see the issue.

What issue? That you think right and wrong and human rights are magically given to us my an invisible creator. Wrong again. That isn't the issue or even an issue at all. Rights are given by people to people. Morals are evolved qualities and learned qualities gained through experience. That is the answer which for some reason you can't understand.

Clarity in expression is sometimes a challenge. However, one can always explain more clearly when one knows what one himself/herself thinks. Too many people try to explain things without even understanding those things themselves. This is why we constantly get into this problem. "Why is abortion wrong?" "It just is!" This type of stuff occurs because the person making the claim has not eve examined why he/she thinks what he/she supposedly thinks.

I believe (notice that I don't use the word "know") right and wrong must've been coming from somewhere.

Here you go making a wild, ridiculous claim. You invoke a supernatural cause when the natural cause is well-known.

and why are the two mutually exclusive?

Well, the very definition of natural and supernatural implies that they are mutually exclusive. If something caused A to happen, that cause is either natural or supernatural. That means natural or not natural. You can't say, "The cause of this was natural and the cause of this was not natural." That would be a logical crime.

Not necessarily, why do you assume there is only one right answer to a question?

If something is natural it cannot also be unnatural. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Why? Because it is a case of A and Not A. Something can't both be A and Not A at the same time. It really is rather simple.

i still think theres
something more to right, wrong and justice. End of discussion.

How about you actually support your wild statement?

She doesn't have to because she is not stating a fact or declaring it is true....

So if I say that I think black people and white people are not equals and shouldn't be treated as equals, I don't need to support my opinion because I said "I think" and not "I know"? Interesting.

That isn't anything like it at all. It is the simplest form of logic. I can say the car is blue and the car is a Ford. Neither of these contradict one another. However, if I say the car is green and the car is not green, they do. This is such simple logic I am starting to feel again that you may not be that smart. If you can't get "it is A" and "it is Not A" are mutually exclusive, I don't know what you can get.

That is ridiculous. I don't even believe you. I think that you would ask the person who claimed that to support their opinion. And I think if you didn't, you would be an offensive excuse for a human.

The two answers do not compete!!!!!!?????? Supernatural means "not natural." So it is an example of A and Not A.

It is also defined as:

http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

- above or beyond what is natural. If something is above or beyond natural it is NOT natural.


There is no such thing as the non physical.

Thoughts are physical. They are electrical impulses that occur in your brain.

The thought is physical. It is composed of electrical impulses in the brain. I can only say that so many times.

Well it could have sharp claws and dull claws, but it can't have sharp claws and not have sharp claws.

Lindsay wrote: "Isn't that basically saying the same thing? Sharp and dull are two opposite ends of the spectrum. In order for the lion's claws to be sharp, they cannot also be dull."

Like, it has some sharp and some dull claws :P