Absolute Morality vs. Relativism

Meh...

First of all, morality is not set in stone. Whilst humans are born with the capacity for morality (in the same way one is born with the capacity to learn language, etc), there isn't really an absolute morality. However, whilst morality is learnt from one's empathic responses to certain situations and from what is conditioned into you from society, absolutes are not there. It is all dependent on how one is brought up and to what they interact with.

As for the whole abortion thing, again, it is dependent on when the foetus can be considered to be conscious. This is speculated to be so at 20 weeks, when the necessary brain development has occured in order to allow it to react to stimuli.

Besides, what if a girl gets pregnant because no methods of contraption were made available (due to laws) and then had to get an illegal abortion, which puts her life at risk. Doesn't the girl's life have value as well? To say otherwise is to devalue women's rights to their own bodies.

I may not like abortion, but I do not dispute that it needs to be kept legal. It is a proper medical procedure which is even required in order to save lives (heard of ecoptic pregnancies? Basically, the zygote begins to grow outside of the womb, and will kill the woman unless an abortion is performed). As an individual who knows personally someone who once HAD to go through an illegal abortion due to various unfortunate circumstances, and then had to go to work the next day after nearly losing her life, I don't even want to dispute that fact.

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

I think what you mean is one's ability to recognise morality is not set in stone. The fact remains that in every situation there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Morality is just a word used to describe where one sits on the scale where right is on one side and wrong on the other. People can be conditioned to believe that doing something wrong is actually right in some situations...but it doesn't make the wrong thing right.

The abortion issue is very complicated and I do think there are times when killing is the right thing to do. Self defense is one of those times. If having a baby will kill you and you got pregnant, it would be right to kill the baby...I think. But that doesn't mean it's really right...only that i think it's right. It may actually still be wrong...

The point is, there is a right and a wrong in every situation.

First of all, morality itself is dependent on the society one is brought up. Depending on what one is exposed to and how one is brought up, morality (like language) develops from what we are exposed to. That's why for any language, you get regional accents/dialects and forth and so on. Even in a language, there is no absolute correct way to speak it. You simply speak it how you were taught it, or from what you picked up from your peers. Morality is the same.

So how can I demonstrate it? Even 100 years ago, things like homosexuality was a taboo issue. One didn't talk about it, if you did it was frowned upon, and if you were a homosexual, you kept it secret. And if you were caught, you were buggered (no pun intended). Now, as society has changed and become more progressive, this is not the issue anymore. Why would homosexuality, once a taboo, not become such an issue over time. The fact is that there is no moral absolute. There is good and bad from the moral perspective, but if one takes an objective perspective on morality, there are no absolutes. In fact, morality and human behaviour can be easily manipulated, as long as one can control the information that a group of people receive and what ideas they are exposed to. Nazis did it with incredible efficiency (not trying to invoke Godwin's Law in here), as history has shown, and cults like Scientology also do the same. Studies have been shown that human behaviour, even if one is not a psychopath and still has empathy, can still be manipulated into being able to torture someone. The infamous Stanford prison experiment is an example of this.

Also, using terms like absolute morality often incurs a religious connotation. It implies that someone/something somehow has imposed or created these moral absolutes. This leads to the obvious question, how do moral absolutes form and how does one determine a moral absolute? Plus, where do you draw your idea of moral absolutes from? The Bible?

Nothing is set in stone. Language is not set in stone, it constantly evolves and adapts, otherwise things like slang and colloquialisms wouldn't exist. Morality is dependent on the societal structure and norms of a group of people, and the idea of absolutes often comes across as being a religious ideal.

Also, the issue of abortion is also exactly why there is no absolute morality, otherwise the issue wouldn't be debated so hotly. And to that I'll simply say this: Women have a right to their own bodies, and thus the choice on whether they wish to go through with a pregnancy or not. The choice is vital in order to maintain women's rights, and removing the choice only serves to undermine those rights.

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

You're still clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to say that wrong is right because your societal upbringing has brainwashed you to believe it so. Persoanally, I wouldn't call the acceptance of the homosexual deviancy as progressive. It's regressive actually. Society has somehow managed to convince itself that men having anal sex with other men is right even though it causes the spread of aids. Weve convinced ourselves that smoking is right even though it causes lung cancer...although we are starting to come around on that one so our society is progressive in some ways...like no smoking in public buildings. It looks like you have accepted that torture is somehow right sometimes just because a study shows that people will do it. Is that what you think? That because the people in that study tortured other people under extreme circumstances that torture was right for them at that time?

Using the term moral relativity implies that there has been some influence that is perhaps anti-religious. But I never said I came to any conclusion about what was right or wrong...only that right and wrong existed. In fact I do believe that God, the creator of everything set out what was right and what was wrong and then gave us a conscience to recognise them. You can complicate the matter as much as you wish to try and convince yourself that wrong is right sometimes for some people but I suspect that you are doing this because you want to deny the existence of a creator...but that's another topic.

Warning, tl;dr post ahead...

Quote: "You're still clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to say that
wrong is right because your societal upbringing has brainwashed you to
believe it so"

Response: bill_vollrath, I never said wrong is right, only that there are no absolutes. I've argued this topic before, so I know what points to make and how to phrase them. Plus, you have no idea how ironic that last bit is.

Quote: "Persoanally, I wouldn't call the acceptance of the homosexual deviancy
as progressive. It's regressive actually. Society has somehow managed
to convince itself that men having anal sex with other men is right
even though it causes the spread of aids."

Response: Aaahahahahahaha, oh deary me... let's go over the phrasing of that quote before tackling content. Regressive? Something that is changing in a negative fashion. Just from the phrasing, the fact you stated that society's norm has changed, regardless of whether it is for better or worse, then the morals had changed and thus absolute morality is annulled.

Content-wise, how typical. Anal sex is bad because it somehow causes AIDs. AIDs is caused by HIV virus, which is spread through unprotected sexual intercourse, whether it is straight sex or gay sex.

Also, what about straight anal sex? Women like it too. As long as you are sensible about it (cleaning thoroughly, maybe through use of douches/enemas, condom, plenty of lube and foreplay), then both sexes are capable of enjoying it. Just because women lack a prostate doesn't mean they can't get pleasure from anal penetration. Also, strap-on sex. Man bends over, and receives it from a woman wearing a strap-on dildo (often made from latex, rubber, or silicone. Lube still required). Little to no exchange of bodily fluids (so very little chance of spread of infections) and the sex-toy can easily be cleaned and sterilised (especially the silicone variety). You never know though, until you are bold enough to stick a lubed finger up there, how do you know it won't be pleasureable? Anal sex can be performed in many ways, and does not always leave the practitioners in danger of acquiring infections (which is dependent on whether either person HAS an infection of some sort in the first place). [/sex-education]

Quote: "Weve convinced ourselves that smoking is right even though it causes
lung cancer...although we are starting to come around on that one so
our society is progressive in some ways...like no smoking in public
buildings"

Response: Outdated opinion is outdated. Firstly, punctuation is your friend. "Weve" should be "We've" [/nitpick]. Secondly, the only reason people were convinced (and this was a few decades ago mind you) was due to the millions spent by tobacco companies on marketing (manipulation of information occurring once again), thus creating the perception that smoking was socially acceptable, even encouraged. In recent years (or dare I say, decades), this has not been the case as society changed its perception on smoking (damn that change! destroying your argument) to the point that now it is even frowned upon.

Quote: "It looks like you have accepted that torture is somehow right sometimes
just because a study shows that people will do it. Is that what you
think? That because the people in that study tortured other people
under extreme circumstances that torture was right for them at that
time?"

Response: My strawman-o-meter is beginning to max-out. I never said torture was right, you are putting words in my mouth. Here's an interesting fact though. Most torturers are pretty much indistinguishable from normal people. If one was to walk into a crowd, you'd not be able to tell which one was the torturer. Why is that? People are capable of dissociating responsibility from themselves and deferring to someone in a position of authority. Experiments have shown this as well. Morality can be manipulated, and thus none of it can be absolute. People will even shift their own moral compass in order to fit in with a certain group of people. Why? Because humans are social creatures, and thus are vulnerable to societal pressures and influences. Humans don't function too well on their own, and thus will consciously or unconsciously change their own perceptions in order to fit in to a group of people, if the need arises.

Quote: "Using the term moral relativity implies that there has been some
influence that is perhaps anti-religious. But I never said I came to
any conclusion about what was right or wrong...only that right and
wrong existed. In fact I do believe that God, the creator of everything
set out what was right and what was wrong and then gave us a conscience
to recognise them. You can complicate the matter as much as you wish to
try and convince yourself that wrong is right sometimes for some people
but I suspect that you are doing this because you want to deny the
existence of a creator...but that's another topic."

Response: Morality is an evolutionary by-product that has been very beneficial to social creatures such as humans. Religion is not responsible for the spread of morality, it merely stole it for its own purpose. Also, Moral Relativity may not be a pink and fluffy concept, allowing for nasty grey-areas and differences in opinions and perspectives, but it fits much better with reality than absolute morality could ever hope to do. And what about other religions? Their ideas of absolute morality differ as well, so if you look at all the different ideas on what constitutes as an absolute moral, how can absolute morality ever exist in reality? It is one thing in believing in something, but it is another thing to deny reality.

I accept Moral Relativity (note, not believe, but accept) because it describes what occurs in reality the best. I made observations, weighed the evidence for and against, and the conclusion I came to was that Moral Relativity fitted best with reality. It does make me somewhat anti-religious though, and I'll admit it. Why? Because of how religion somehow peddles the argument of absolute morality and truth, both ideas which do not correspond with reality.

As for you, resorting to strawman arguments and generally putting words in my mouth only serves to highlight the lack of logic and reasoning behind your argument. Plus, finishing off your argument on how I am somehow just denying the existence of a creator is really an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. You rely on emotional perspectives, not on logic and reasoning, and thus you can't comprehend the concept of objectivity. Right and wrong are products of morality, which is a subjective concept, Absolute Right and Wrong would constitute as being objectively right or wrong, which is a paradox, as with objective arguments, there is no moral right or wrong, only profit and loss (which are both independent from morality).

Summary: Your argument is full of logical fallacies and inconsistencies, not to mention a little dogmatic. I never said wrong was right, only that absolutes don't correspond with reality. If you can't understand that, then do us all a favour and wake up.

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

I'm right, you're wrong...that's absolute. lol

I stated my point, there's not much more to say. I know you disagree. Great! Good for you! That a great big boy! Nice kittens...cute

Please leave such condescending undertones out of your posts, especially in a forum for freethinkers. You do not act condescendingly to a person wanting a debate, just because he/she happens to disagree with you.

You are attempting to hamstring debate by using the clichéd "agree to disagree" crap. I spent time and effort not only reading through your posts carefully, but also typing up a lengthy, well set out counter-argument. To simply dismiss it with a 'joke' (if you can even call it that) is just immature at best.

I left enough room for further debate in my counter-argument, but you do not wish to engage further. Why is that? Are you perhaps afraid to be shown that you are wrong on certain things? You go into debates with the expectation that your argument or opinions may be shown to be erroneous or completely false, and to think otherwise is naive. If you can't even entertain the notion that you could be wrong, how can you ever hope to hold a proper intellectual debate?

To refute a well-laid out argument, it takes more than just a few words. It takes effort, research, and thought. At least give your fellow debaters the benefit of a decent rebuttal, not the shitty "I'm right, you're wrong" replies, as this discussion is far from over.

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

Hmmmm...is thinking and speaking freely not allowed here? I wasn't aware this was a debate. I think if you read the posts here you'll see who was the most condescending. I was just stating my thoughts. When will people ever just settle on agreeing to disagree? Everyone wants a fight...whatever man. God wins in the end.

"Consider for example the issue of abortion. I think most of us would agree that to take the life of a human being is wrong. So why is it that people can justify the murder of an unborn baby because the pregnancy is somehow inconvenient for someone else."

I'm not going to argue for or against abortion here. However, out of curiosity, I have to wonder what you do with this passage:

"Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137:9

How could a loving God who condemns abortion also inspire a psalmist to write something this terrible about happily killing children?

Also, what about the story in 2 Samuel 12 where God makes David's baby son severely sick for a week and then kills him because of David's sin? How could a loving God who condemns abortion perform something so terrible to a child?

Forget about arguing whether abortion is right or wrong, because you've got some explaining to do on this crap first.

We must all work out our own salvation "with fear and trembling" I think it says. There are a lot of passages in the Bible I don't understand. And I never said abortion was right or wrong. I said I "thought" it was wrong in most cases. People invented the idea of relative morality because they realised they couldn't always know what was right or wrong.

And hey, John...I didn't say anal sex causes aids...I said it causes THE SPREAD of aids. As most people do with bible passages you have taken my words out of context. Actually you totally twisted my words and misquoted me.

Anyways, I'll pray that God doesn't smite any of you...The Bible says, "It is a fool who says in his mind there is no God"...and the punishment for dissing Him is pretty harsh. Not my words...Don't go calling me judgemental now...I know that's what you're thinking...

Ah... this is what it all boils down to, another preacher. Now that I know what I'm dealing with, I'll make things simple for you (as essay long responses will simply be a waste).

1) Who said your religion's idea of absolute morality was the correct one? Perhaps the Norse had it correct, or maybe the Egyptians, or perhaps the Hindu's have it nailed. What makes you so sure that your God is the correct one? Everyone has to explain themselves, their opinions and beliefs... what makes you think you are not required to do the same?

2) Unprotected sex (as in no use of condoms) spreads the HIV virus, which in turn causes AIDs. This could be unprotected vaginal sex OR anal sex, because both tissues in each hole are prone to tearing during sex (yes, though the vagina is more accustomed to being penetrated, its thicker walls still are prone to tearing). We never misquoted you, we just tore your ignorant comment to pieces.

3) Considering I've been 'dissing' God for quite a while now, long before you starting praying (which is another thing entirely I could go on about), I should have been struck by lightning or had me killed in some dramatic way. I am still here, still 'blaspheming' and I'm loving it. Your appeals to fear are an example of how petty your religion is, that it can't even accept differences of opinion, because in reality, it doesn't leave much room for discussion and free thought.

If you don't understand a lot of the Bible, well get reading! Do your research before attempting to come to us to promote it. You are desperate enough to believe in this fairytale to the point you are going out and preaching to others about it in order to reaffirm your own belief by converting others. As the wise Sun Tzu once said in his book The Art Of War:

"There is nothing quite as dangerous as a desperate person"

I'll leave that as food for thought...

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

LOL, bill.

If I were to dash infants against rocks and laugh about it, you'd say that what I did was absolutely wrong. Yet, when a passage of the Bible promotes such activity, you write it off with, "There are a lot of passages in the Bible I don't understand." No condemnation of it.

If I were to intentionally cause a baby to get sick for a week and then kill him/her because his/her father had done something I disapproved of, you'd say that what I did was absolutely wrong. Yet, when a passage of the Bible says that God did exactly that, you write it off with, "There are a lot of passages in the Bible I don't understand." No condemnation of it.

And yet you say that we are the ones with relative morality?

Bluefinger, kudos to you for putting some effort into this. If Mr. Vollrath didn't appreciate it I sure did. 

-- Oh, and nice point towards the end there, JustMe...

Drive by post. 

Typical for fundies. 

You guys can hang around here cutting down other peoples' "free" thoughts. I have things to do. See ya'll.

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.

Hi Just Me,

Yes...dashing children against rocks would be absolutely wrong in MY ESTIMATION. But again, my estimation of what is absolutely right or wrong is probably wrong. The simple answer is (again) we just can't know what is absolutely right or wrong...but that doesn't mean there aren't absolutes in this area.

As for understanding the Bible, well I can't say I understand it. I believe there is a God and that he has a plan for all of His creation. I even dare to state to my pastors and friends that I think men made mistakes when they attempted to write down what they thought God was telling them.

But as for a text that is supposed to be the word of God, I think the Bible is the closest thing we have.

As for venturing onto other sites (more Christian based ones I think you mean) I get kicked out of those too.

Cheers, Bill

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.

So you use the word estimation on whether dashing children against rocks is good or bad. Well then, so much for absolutes. If no one can know what is absolutely right or wrong, perhaps it is because there is no absolutes. Just like you can't prove the existence of a deity through lack of evidence, the same applies to absolute morality. In fact, if no one knew what constituted as an absolute right or wrong, then the concept of absolute morality is pretty much buggered (because with no one to draw the lines, morality once again becomes a grayscale affair).

As for the Bible, it condones slavery, rape, cruelty to children, religious intolerance, hatred towards homosexuals & bisexuals, and so forth and so on. How can something which promotes so much hate be the word of God? Unless God was a petty psychopath that is...

I expect for you to say that I'm probably taking the Bible out of context when saying it condones all the crap it does, so I suggest you to do one thing: Go read it yourself! Don't just listen to the pink fluffy bits your pastor picks out, read the whole Bible from front to back. See for yourself the very words you are trying to promote and what they really say. If you want to be considered a freethinker, then you must go about doing your own research on the topics you wish to discuss, as opposed to simply regurgitating other people's ideas.

I want to hear from you on how something that is supposed to lay down the framework for absolute morality, somehow condones something like slavery, rape, genocide, etc. If you don't understand the Bible, then read it. If you don't have a Bible of your own, here's a link to a website which highlights all the nasty bits in the Bible (don't worry, it uses the KJV bible... but it also has the Quran and Book of Mormon, if you are interested).

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

I read the first line of your post and didn't go on because you are simply twisting my words. I never said I was capable of determining absolutes. I said absolutes exist. You simply state AGAIN that because we can't determine absolutes, they must not exist. Anyway, I'll read on now...

I think what you're saying is: 1) People are too stupid to figure out what is right or wrong so they should just go ahead and do whatever feels good. 2) People are too stupid to understand the Bible so throw it out, deny Jesus and disobey God and "to hell" with the consequences. 3) There's probably no God, heaven or hell anyway so nothing matters.

Did you see Beowolf? Did you think it was wrong for the hero to kill the babies of the evil oppressor in that movie? Maybe this is an example of when killing babies is absolutely right?

People read the psalm 137:9 and picture sweet little human babies...maybe it's talking about something a little more hideous.

Cheers, Bill

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.

This is why I suggest you read the whole post. I was using your words to point out the contradictions in your argument. It is not about whether people are too stupid to figure out what is absolutely right or wrong, it is just that everybody has different ideas on what is right and wrong and that no one can really decide on what is absolutely right or wrong, which brings a lot of DOUBT into the concept of Absolute Morality. If no one can decisively draw the line on what is absolutely right or wrong, even when referencing your own bible, then absolute morality is non-existant. On the whole killing babies thing, which your Bible mentions quite a bit, you have yet to CONDEMN the passage mentioned by JustMe, only holding that you simply don't understand it.

Different cultures hold different ideals and perspectives, and thus hold differing morals to your particular society. These morals may not be so different, but because they don't match in certain areas, then disagreements occur and all sorts of shit can happen.

Besides, I still hold on the question on what makes your particular brand of deity and holy text more relevant than the rest? Perhaps you may have the wrong religion, and that Buddhism has all the correct assumptions on the subject?

Think about it for a moment. Why does even christianity have so many different denominations that can't even agree with each other on certain things in ther Bible? It seems to me that if one can't agree on absolute truths, then absolute morality also is something open to interpretation, and thus isn't so absolute after all. Something that is absolute wouldn't be open to interpretation, as it would be clear to all, but the fact that differences remain mean that whilst we may all have a roundabout idea on what constitutes a good act and a bad act, there is no clear definition or line that separates the two and there is no pure good nor pure bad act. The concept of Ying & Ying is that even in evil, there's a seed of good, and in good, there's a seed of evil. The two can't exist without each other, and that even good and evil can't be clearly defined.

I hope you at least read all of this so you don't jump to conclusions...

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

I realize that this subject was not addressed particularly to me, but I am enjoying this "conversation" between freethinkers, anyway!

Sorry man, I've said all I can on this subject. Again I am not going to let you put words in my mouth. Once again, I believe absolutes exist regardless of whether or not you, I or anyone else can determine what they are...and culture, upbringing and education don't make absolutes less absolute...only our perceptions of them. So, saying that absolutes don't exist because we can't decide what they are is simply a cop-out. As for the Bible verse quoted (psalm 137:9,) I will not condemn it. I will not condemn anything I don't understand. I will condemn dashing human babies against rocks in this day and age as wrong...ok?

All the best, Bill

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.

All I am trying to do is show you the problems that your argument holds. You won't condemn a biblical quote but you'll condemn the act it mentions? Isn't that being relative right there?

And YES, culture, upbringing and education make all the difference, because that is how we get such variety of opinions and moral perspectives. People will agree on what is right or wrong when dealing with generalised situations, but when you start bringing more complicated situations, things all of a sudden becoming fuzzy. Right and wrong are all subjective experiences, and can't be considered objective. Objectivity lies in the realm of profit/loss and facts, and not with absolutes (such as absolute morals and truth). There's a difference between subjectivity and objectivity which one MUST recognise.

And as for the whole 'putting words in your mouth', I simply was picking apart your argument. You had some glaring inconsistencies, and thus I was simply pointing them out. Obviously, you are not accustomed to receiving criticism, and again, if you do not wish to receive criticism, there are better places than here that can serve your needs.

I do ask you to go read the Bible on your own. Enlighten yourself with the very text that you are trying to promote, and see for yourself the kinds of messages it possesses. Please don't remain ignorant of the facts people here have pointed out to you. Logic and reasoning are good things...

-Bluefinger v1.25-

Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

Thanks for your response. Come let us reason together…. 

"Yes...dashing children against rocks would be absolutely wrong..." 

I can agree with this. At least, I can't think of any situation that would justify beating babies / infants / young children against rocks. How in the world could they deserve that drastic of treatment? So, if anything could be said to be absolutely wrong, I'd think that that this would be a strong candidate. 

"...in MY ESTIMATION. But again, my estimation of what is absolutely right or wrong is probably wrong."

Hmmm.... I have to suspect that the only reason you added this part is because you know you have to deal with Psalm 137:9, correct? I mean, if the Bible didn't condone this act for the Hebrews, then you would stand by your assertion that it's absolutely wrong, wouldn't you?

"The simple answer is (again) we just can't know what is absolutely right or wrong...but that doesn't mean there aren't absolutes in this area."

As has already been pointed out by others, don't you see that it's a bit absurd to argue for absolute morality and yet argue that we cannot know those moral absolutes? It makes your position rather moot, doesn't it?

"As for understanding the Bible, well I can't say I understand it."

Considering that it's an ancient collection of men's writings influenced by their own cultural surroundings, I can't imagine that anyone today could fully understand every single thing in it. That being said, though, Psalm 137 and 2 Samuel 12 really aren't very ambiguous, are they?

"I believe there is a God and that he has a plan for all of His creation. I even dare to state to my pastors and friends that I think men made mistakes when they attempted to write down what they thought God was telling them."

Well, if you acknowledge that there are mistakes in the Bible, then do you not view it as authoritative? And if you accept that there are errors in the Bible, why not just consider the passages in question to be mistaken and agree that they are morally corrupt?

"Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity."

Trying to change the subject, eh? For your information, I have done those things, more than you probably would have expected. Regardless, though, this doesn't have much bearing on the discussion at hand, does it? Is it an attempt distract from the discussion by making others feel guilty?

Anyway, from another post:

"People read the psalm 137:9 and picture sweet little human babies...maybe it's talking about something a little more hideous."

Hideous babies deserving inhumane treatment? What are you smoking?

The Hebrew term for "little ones" in Psalm 137:9 is translated in other KJV passages as "children," "infant," "babes" and "child." In Psalm 137:9, the NIV translates it "infants," the NLT "babies," the CEV "children," and the NASB and ESV translate it the same as the KJV, as "little ones."

How in the world can babies and/or little children be hideous creatures deserving such horrific treatment? Do you not see how much you're grasping at straws to try to get out of your Catch 22?

Anyway, from an earlier post:

"You guys can hang around here cutting down other peoples' 'free' thoughts. I have things to do. See y'all."

It's not a matter of cutting down other people's "free thoughts," but a matter of not simply swallowing just anything thrown at us. How is it a bad thing to analyze peoples' claims?

Also, with all due respect, can you honestly say that your thoughts are "free"? It seems to me that you've been indoctrinated with religious ideology. Is indoctrination really free thought?

I actually feel for you, because I was raised with religious indoctrination and have spent the majority of my life believing it. It wasn't until I was 29 (nearly 6 years ago) that I began to question it, after which I went through a couple depressing years, feeling like the world was being yanked from under my feet and I had no place to get a foothold. It's definitely a difficult experience questioning one's own beliefs and going through a paradigm shift. Thankfully, though, I've come to the place where I'm no longer shackled by religious programming, and I feel much better (and much more reasonable) now that I've broken away.

The Nutshell

In a nutshell, this is what our part of this discussion boils down to. If you want to try to uphold a case for absolute morality, then you have to do one of these things:

(1) Acknowledge that Psalm 137:9 and God's alleged actions in 2 Samuel 12 are morally wrong.

(2) Demonstrate how happily beating babies / toddlers / children against rocks or intentionally making them severely sick and then killing them is morally justifiable.

If you cannot do either of those, then you really don't hold to absolute morality, thus completely crumbling your case.

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.

That line at the end of my posts is not an argument or conversation starter...it's a tag-line...a signature quote. It's at the bottom of all my posts. You might notice bluefinger's tag-line that says...Knowledge may be free, but human stupidity is infinite...

All the best, Bill

Try to make a difference. Feed a hungry mouth. Clothe someone who's cold. Donate to a charity.