Being Christian all my life (and very happy being so), I can't fathom how without God there can be good, and how without Satan there can be evil. How can atheists out there discuss ethics without a God? How can there be good and an evil if there is no supernatural?

All adjectives are relative, so how can there be a God? It's like Decartes said, "I think I am not perfect, therefore I must have an idea of what perfect is. Since I must have an idea of what perfect is and I know of no one who is perfect, I must believe in a God."
How does it work?

I can I've only truly discovered my faith but a moral code of ethcis does not require religion but religion can help reinforce that code of ethics you hold yourself to and all of this depends on the person you don't need God to tell you this is wrong you just need to know hey I know I'm not supposed to do this for yourself not some deity.

quote:

Originally posted by Euterpe:
...People functioned without Christianity to tell them right from wrong? Surely you must be kidding.

I'm not saying without Christianity. I'm saying without belief in a God of some sort.

Wow. Just......wow.


I'm not going to be sarcastic, though I feel that would be the just thing to do right now.


My "moral" code is based on science and logic. I don't feel like elaborating, but at least I don't think it's good ethics to stone people to death for wearing cotton-wool socks.

...People functioned without Christianity to tell them right from wrong? Surely you must be kidding.

It's just common sense. Even before the rise of Chrisianity, killing people was considered wrong.

...or you can take a very large amount of lsd and drive yourself into a permanent state very similar to that of accute paranoid schizofrenia, eliminating any reminiscence of what reality is, therefore resolving your problem of fear of death, and incomprehension of what surrounds you...

good and evil are relative concepts that lack a clear definition, you sound pretty inteligent so i will abstain of explaining what i just said, even so, if you were to fuse filosophy and phisics (however its written) you would come to the immediate conclusion that good and evil are conceptions of a reality that is nothing more than and abstraction of the mind, and therefore don't really exist. Following from this you also come to the conclusion that you can't judge "levels" of good and evil...
whatever, i think you get my point.
I hope that made sense =]

Faith, clpo, is a type of hope. Let rugar have her hope.

Rugar, if Your God is as good as He says He is, He would have left you signs OTHER than the Bible. Look for them.

Of course. How could it be any other way? I mean, jeez, it can't be good to actually think. Thinking's bad. </sarcasm>

By Faith we will understand.

What kind of statement is that? "By faith." WTF?

By Faith.

What I mean by my quote is that in realitivism there is an absolute which is that there aren't any absolutes. It contradicts itself and therefore is hypocritical. I used to be very much a realitivist and now I realize that I was wrong. Realitivism justifies total selfishness and can bring people to think that the world revolves around them. When nothing matters but oneself this becomes very destructive because one can justify any action they do. Also there is basically no differance between realitivism and moral realitivism because what is moral if everything is realitive?

quote:

True realitivism is impossible because in realitivism there are no absolutes except that there are no absolutes. Think about it.

Eh? Could you run that by me again?

True realitivism is impossible because in realitivism there are no absolutes except that there are no absolutes. Think about it.

quote:

Origianlly posted by DrStrangelove:
...but I hope you get the point.

I do, and I find it annoyingly difficult to disagree with.

But I still maintain that moral relativism exists to a high degree.

quote:

Yes and no. I suppose you could make an argument that total relativism can't exist because everyone's perception of right and wrong is dictated by society's standards to some degree, but as clpo pointed out, people who commit what society at large considers horrible atrocities generally believe what they're doing is "right." So moral relativism definitely exists to an extremely high degree.

I'm not entirely sure about that. There are certain instinctual motivators that seem to be hardwired into the human brain: Survial, the protection and proliferation of one's own kind (ie. tribe), etc. Even the Nazi's were motivated by "purifying the human race" and protecting their percieved Aryan bloodline.
It's the same concept people talk about genetically weeding out "bad" genes through genetic engineering, which would be a good thing. It's not the moral logic that's the difference, it's the information used to make the moral desicion. It's obviously more complex but I hope you get the point.

So my point is that there is an "morality" hardwired into us in the begining. Human nature, as well as the natural laws of nature. These set a base morality that really can't be tampered with without massive (and in my opinion wasted) resources put into effect to counter them. That's why total relativism fails.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
Ah, but there is right and wrong. Total relatavism fails.

Yes and no. I suppose you could make an argument that total relativism can't exist because everyone's perception of right and wrong is dictated by society's standards to some degree, but as clpo pointed out, people who commit what society at large considers horrible atrocities generally believe what they're doing is "right." So moral relativism definitely exists to an extremely high degree.

However, if you're just saying that moral relativism shouldn't be considered when trying to maintain a functonal society, I agree. Obviously, letting a rapist go free because he believed what he was doing to be right is proposterous.

quote:

Also I'd think that popular opinion of someone who killed a baby thinking it was Hitler wouldn't be "evil", but rather "holy-batsh*t insane". Maybe minus the holy part.

True, but insanity is also subjective. Although I must admit, the guy in clpo's example was pretty fucking nuts.

quote:

The answer to this question is simpler than one might think. There are no such things as good and evil.

Ah, but there is right and wrong. Total relatavism fails.

Even in your own example, you implied that genocide and mindless killing are wrong.

Also I'd think that popular opinion of someone who killed a baby thinking it was Hitler wouldn't be "evil", but rather "holy-batsh*t insane". Maybe minus the holy part.

My good and evil are definatly different than your good and evil, because there is no good and evil. Its all an opinion, just like right and wrong, as clpo and Celtic oultined.