Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Bringer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Is it?

Was Hitler better dead or alive?

EDIT - I'm saying that there is only ethics if you believe in a religion.

Ah... Godwins law strikes again.

Actually, people would argue this both ways if given a chance, but to keep it relevant to this thread, you should be asking- would a good Christian believe Hitler was better off dead, or alive?

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Generally speaking, I would agree. However, there will always be situations where that is not the case. For example, where life will be a serious hardship (such as in the case of the final stages of certain diseases/illnesses).

However, the point here is that because there is no absolute fixed "right and wrong" (such as death is always bad and anyone who ends life will go to hell, etc), ethical reasoning can consider the situation objectively and, if need be, on a case by case basis without having to constrain itself within artificial (or divine) constraints.

The Bringer wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it is impossible to make some objective statements that give a baseline for ethical reasoning.

For instance, life is better then death.

Is it?

Was Hitler better dead or alive?

EDIT - I'm saying that there is only ethics if you believe in a religion.

But since you can't prove the validity of any religion, how can you base a code of ethics off one?

And more to the point, how can ethics be unified when there are so many religions, all of which have the same level of validity?

It's a tricky question, no?

Here's another one- if religious belief is the only way to have ethics, how does one account for non-religious people and outright non-believers who behave in, and have understanding of, ethical behaviour?

First of all, there is a difference between ethics and morality.

Morality can be whatever you care for it to be, and that is what people base their behavior off of.

And the answer to your first question, there can be no ethics without 1 religion being proved.

So you are now saying that ethics does not exist? At all?

The Bringer wrote:
Ethics based off of religion comes down to whether or not that religion is correct. You can't really prove any religion to be ultimately correct, however improbable or probable they are.

The Bringer wrote:
there can be no ethics without 1 religion being proved.

There you have it. In your own words, there can be no ethics.

You have successfully defeated your own argument for ethics based off of religion.

If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.
I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.
Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.



EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

The Bringer wrote:Personally, I highly doubt that some centurion (who knew that if anyone spotted him) would have been talking with some girl or falling asleep.

But you don't think it feasible to doubt that a man came back from the dead? REALLY?

Option 1. A man fell asleep.
Option 2. A man came back from the dead.

You're seriously telling me you think Option 2 the more likely and viable of the two? I'm not even an atheist, and I find this rebuttal awful.
*headdesk*

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.

Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.

What you said is that it is immpossible to prove any religion, and that without proving one religion, there is is no ethics.

What you are saying is that there is no ethics.

I would love to see you try to explain this to any ethics committee.

Ethics- as defined in a dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethics

Religion does not define ethics, though it can be used for a basis of ethical behaviour. So can other things, like logic. Also, it is possible to be moral without being ethical, and it is possible to ethical without being moral. It is also possible to be both, and to not be a Christian.

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.

Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.

What you said is that it is immpossible to prove any religion, and that without proving one religion, there is is no ethics.

What you are saying is that there is no ethics.

I clarified, my original statement was wrong >.<


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

The Bringer wrote:Personally, I highly doubt that some centurion (who knew that if anyone spotted him) would have been talking with some girl or falling asleep.

But you don't think it feasible to doubt that a man came back from the dead? REALLY?

Option 1. A man fell asleep.
Option 2. A man came back from the dead.

You're seriously telling me you think Option 2 the more likely and viable of the two? I'm not even an atheist, and I find this rebuttal awful.
*headdesk*

If the Bible is correct... option 1.

It really depends the context. A christian would say 1, an atheist would say 2.

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.
I'm not saying it exists or doesn't, I'm giving you the conditions.
Just because we don't know if a religion is true or not doesn't mean there is no ethics.



EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth-values (if any) may be determined;
Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
Moral psychology, about how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is; and
Descriptive ethics, about what moral values people actually abide by.

Why is religion necessary for ethics, honestly i think culture is more important. Religion is only relevant for a universal ethics that should be consistant across all cultures.

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

So not only do you have to accept the religion as true on the basis of faith (since it can't be proven), you also have to accept ethics on faith since its existence is dependent on the truthfulness of the religion that can't be proven to be true.

Yep, sounds correct.

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

So not only do you have to accept the religion as true on the basis of faith (since it can't be proven), you also have to accept ethics on faith since its existence is dependent on the truthfulness of the religion that can't be proven to be true.

If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible.

I've yet to see anything supernatural proven...

TheCapm wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote:
EDIT - I see your logic there. Let me clarify my statement:

Ethics can or cannot exist, but it can only be proved to exist if a religion is true.

So not only do you have to accept the religion as true on the basis of faith (since it can't be proven), you also have to accept ethics on faith since its existence is dependent on the truthfulness of the religion that can't be proven to be true.

If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

Source?

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

Did you bring a share size pack of evidence, or are you planning on keeping it all to yourself?

And when you say there is "actual evidence", what exactly do you mean, and when you say "certain supernatural biblical events", what exactly do you mean?

For example, there are things which can walk on water. There is also a story in the bible where Jesus walked on water.

One does not prove the occurrence of the other.

SilverMK2 wrote:

TheCapm wrote:If you care to broaden your view, there is actual evidence that supports certain supernatural biblical events recorded in the Bible. If one knows the evidence, it supports their faith.

Did you bring a share size pack of evidence, or are you planning on keeping it all to yourself?

And when you say there is "actual evidence", what exactly do you mean, and when you say "certain supernatural biblical events", what exactly do you mean?

For example, there are things which can walk on water. There is also a story in the bible where Jesus walked on water.

One does not prove the occurrence of the other.

Also, Reputable sources please! History channel doesent count (Dammit history channel i used to enjoy you but now you suck with stupid alien and conspiracy shows)

... but aliens do exist, right guys?


Anyways, would you yet agree that without religion there is no ethics?

The Bringer wrote:If a religion is true, this is ethics. If not, there is no ethics.

False dichotomy based off of religious arrogance.

I have nothing more to say about this that would not break the forum's first rule.

But-but- We need to see what would happen if humans disappeared, and why the Bermuda Triangle is haunted by USOs, which are submarine UFOs!

I am prepared to believe that there may be geological or archaeological evidence for events mentioned in the Bible, such as the plagues of Egypt, however this is not the same as there being a supernatural basis for them.

In fact one might say, that if they are explicable by natural phenomena, there is no need for a supernatural explanation.

The Bringer wrote:Anyways, would you yet agree that without religion there is no ethics?

like i said before there would be no "correct" or universal ethics (just because they're gods ethics doesent make them right now excuse me while i dodge lightning)

Can you prove ethics Melissia?

The Bringer wrote:Can you prove ethics Melissia?

More than you can prove the existence of your god.

The Bringer wrote:But you can't have ethics without it.

Can you prove ethics Melissia?

I am not an ethics major, so I would not deign to attempt to do such (my field of study being more scientific in nature than philosophical). I can, however, prove that ethics exists outside of religion, therefor your entire premise is false.

And it's quite simple. Ethical systems exist which do not require a belief in one or ore deities, therefor ethics are not tied to belief in one or more deities. There is no simpler line of logical reasoning than this.

micahaphone wrote:But-but- We need to see what would happen if humans disappeared, and why the Bermuda Triangle is haunted by USOs, which are submarine UFOs!

They're real. This guy says so.

@ all post between my last

When i say evidence, I mean more like facts in favor of Christianity.

Sure, most of it is Christianity vs. Evolution though (hope I don't start a flame war)

The occurrence of The Flood would explain many things that evolution attempts to explain itself. For instance, the grand canyon could have easily been caused by a flood. Fossils deep under the surface could have easily been caused by one massive flood washing it all together like one giant mixing bowl, instead of it occurring over millions and millions of years. It would explain the formation of mountains in non-volcanic areas not along the earth's plates. It would explain the extinctions of certain species only known about because of fossil sites.

There where thousands of prophecies made about Christ confirmed through other records in history not just the bible (just in case you are an atheist) that were all fulfilled during the life of Christ. The chances of one person fulfilling all of them were calculated to a figure that contained over a billion zeros in it against 1. Thus showing that there are supernatural events.

Evidence against evolution that just stands to reason. How could a single celled organism have the capacity to evolve when its DNA strand that is minuscule.

There's a bunch more, but I can't recall it at the moment or haven't been introduced to it before.

Edit: scratch the part about the previous posts. A lot popped up since I wrote this.