The reason Christianity is important....

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] (1) Reason. It's not just my morals, too. It's anyone who accepts an objective definition of good and strives to achieve that ideal standard. (2) You didn't.chessmaster1989

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong. To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

My real point, though, was that there isn't any universally held theory throughout every single human society save for incest, and incest not being a universal norm just reinforces that point.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong. To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

theone86

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong. To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

theone86

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

chessmaster1989

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

Teenaged

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

The discussion pertains to universal, not objective, morals, which are two separate ideas (though objective morals could in theory be universal, and vice versa).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

chessmaster1989

The discussion pertains to universal, not objective, morals, which are two separate ideas (though objective morals could in theory be universal, and vice versa).

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

Teenaged

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

Again, universal morals are morals held by everyone, whereas objective morals are the "correct" morals. Objective morals need not be adhered be agreed upon by all; universal morals must.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Which, of course, is why some people (especially several centuries back, when marriage of royal families was kept within the family to "preserve" the bloodline) do marry within their own family? :|

chessmaster1989

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

But then, excluding technicalities like government's right to executions, there really isn't any universally accepted moral. I can't think of any norm or moray (spelling?) that doesn't go hand in hand with deviance. We accept certain things as right and wrong based on the values of our society, and using that standard it's easier to find, or try to find, universal ground.

Religion had its time, and we wouldn't be were we are today, for better or for worse, without it. However I feel that the need for Religion has pretty much expired and is no longer need in society.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Ah, well then you get into the definition of incest. Do cousins count, or aunts, or siblings? There may be flex room, but I don't think there's a society that's ever existed that's condoned, socially at least, intercourse between parent and child, and very few that condoned it between siblings. Once you start getting outside the immediate family it gets a little more vague, however.

theone86

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

But then, excluding technicalities like government's right to executions, there really isn't any universally accepted moral. I can't think of any norm or moray (spelling?) that doesn't go hand in hand with deviance. We accept certain things as right and wrong based on the values of our society, and using that standard it's easier to find, or try to find, universal ground.

Indeed, that is true, there is (to my knowledge) not a single universally accepted moral. Is there a problem with that?

If that's the case, any other religion that threatens "wrong" doings with eternities in agonizing pain are as important, right?

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong.theone86

To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

theone86

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong.Genetic_Code

To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

theone86

Innocence is a term with no universal definition, however. Besides which, there are those who kill, torture, and cheat those they might think innocent merely for pleasure or personal profit, so the definition is not universal regardless.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

chessmaster1989

Again, universal morals are morals held by everyone, whereas objective morals are the "correct" morals. Objective morals need not be adhered be agreed upon by all; universal morals must.

See, this is exactly what I hate about objectivism. you get people like Ayn Rand who try to blur the lines between the search for an absolute truth with their world view actually BEING absolute truth. It's one of the oldest tricks in the books, I mean Descartes was pulling the same crap in Meditations III+IV. One, while objectivism might be classified as being the correct morals, no honest objectivist would suppose that they held the correct morals. Two, objective morals do not necessarily need to be agreed to. I see objectivism as more of a way of thinking, of searching for absolute truth but never supposing it in yourself. To do so crosses the line of subjectivity and objecticity.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal. :|

Genetic_Code

Dude, do you know the definition of universal? Again, I'm not talking about objective morality.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Another thing with which I disagree. Objectiveness can be attributed without taking into account anyone's personal opinion.

theone86

Again, universal morals are morals held by everyone, whereas objective morals are the "correct" morals. Objective morals need not be adhered be agreed upon by all; universal morals must.

See, this is exactly what I hate about objectivism. you get people like Ayn Rand who try to blur the lines between the search for an absolute truth with their world view actually BEING absolute truth. It's one of the oldest tricks in the books, I mean Descartes was pulling the same crap in Meditations III+IV. One, while objectivism might be classified as being the correct morals, no honest objectivist would suppose that they held the correct morals. Two, objective morals do not necessarily need to be agreed to. I see objectivism as more of a way of thinking, of searching for absolute truth but never supposing it in yourself. To do so crosses the line of subjectivity and objecticity.

Which is what I've been saying, and is the distinction between universal morals and absolute morals...

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Technically speaking, there's only one universally human definition of good and that's of incest being wrong.Genetic_Code

To put your morals forth as the universal defintion of good is pretty specious.

theone86

Headhunters, cannibals, capitalists, opportunists, people of a Machiavellian persuasion, social Darwinists, hell the Bush Administration advocated torture. Society can agree on rules and laws that are agreed to by a general consensus, but there is no inherent value that has ever shown to be consistent across every single society.

Innocence is a term with no universal definition, however. Besides which, there are those who kill, torture, and cheat those they might think innocent merely for pleasure or personal profit, so the definition is not universal regardless.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Innocence is a term with no universal definition, however. Besides which, there are those who kill, torture, and cheat those they might think innocent merely for pleasure or personal profit, so the definition is not universal regardless.

Genetic_Code

You know, mate, your saying I'm contradicting myself does not mean I am doing so. If you can't accept that, there really isn't much point to this.

Dude, do you know the definition of universal? Again, I'm not talking about objective morality.

chessmaster1989

You know, mate, your saying I'm contradicting myself does not mean I am doing so. If you can't accept that, there really isn't much point to this.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] WordNet defines it as applicable to or common to all members of a group or set. That sounds reasonable. What's your point?Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]A set of universal morals is one that is accepted by all human beings, not by all societies. If merely one human being does not agree with it, it is not universal.

Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, mate, your saying I'm contradicting myself does not mean I am doing so. If you can't accept that, there really isn't much point to this.

Genetic_Code

This is just funny. :lol:

Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I've had on GS. And that's saying something. :lol:

Vell, Zis devolved vather vapidly.Locke562

Somehow, the typed accent made that post a lot funnier. :lol:

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

By that idea only atheists and non-christians would be in jail

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

BumFluff122

I have nothing better to do. :(

Well, to tell the truth, I do, I just am choosing not to do it. >_>

Societies existed and functioned just fine long before Christianity came to be...chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Societies existed and functioned just fine long before Christianity came to be...LeGoofyGoober

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

Genetic_Code

Laws are there for a reason. You don't see Atheists burning down San Francisco just because they don't believe in God. This was a poorly thought out thread. hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Laws are there for a reason. You don't see Atheists burning down San Francisco just because they don't believe in God. This was a poorly thought out thread. mohfrontline

when you think about it, an atheist has no meaning in life. There is no purpose for their birth or death. So I am a little surprised atheists don't go around blowing stuff up, they have nothing to live for.mohfrontline

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

BumFluff122

I can fill in as the angry evil theist, if you need someone. :P

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

I see you two have run the theists off so you are arguing amongst yourselves. Today is a sad sad day for non-believers everywhere.

GabuEx

I can fill in as the angry evil theist, if you need someone. :P

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Laws are there for a reason. You don't see Atheists burning down San Francisco just because they don't believe in God. This was a poorly thought out thread. mohfrontline

Atheists can't find meaning in nothing? Believe me, noithing is one of the most beautiful things on the face of the Earth. Just because there's no omnipotent figure controlling everything threre's no reason to live a decent life? I beg to differ. So what if life is some cosmic accident, why does that make everything meaningless? Doesn't that amke everything more meaningful? Think of when things are planned, like a group of condos all stuck together in one segregated section of town, it completely distracts from any architectual ingenuity might have been there in the first place. But someone who just happens to be walking along the cliffs and envisions architectual genius, that's brilliant. Just because something is planned does not make it more meaningful.

[QUOTE="LeGoofyGoober"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Societies existed and functioned just fine long before Christianity came to be...BumFluff122

Replace christianity with religion and you may have a point. Many ancient societies' customs and actions were based around religious beliefs if not all. (I could be wrong with the all part :P)

Because Christianity does not govern society or rules made by the society to protect yourself and your fellow humans aswell as even other creatures and nature itself. Christianity does preach Morality but so does other religions and even those who don't follow a religion are able to understand what is right and wrong through their own moral perception. Religion is a safety net in which you can use to explain the moral choices or right and wrong, but even those without a religion can understand what is right and wrong and thus your reasoning is faulty. Had it been the case then Atheists would be running around killing and raping, creating anarchy but such is not the case. Is it not so?Treflis

Hmm I know what I'm trying to say but I'm probably not wording it right. ::gives up::

[QUOTE="Treflis"]Because Christianity does not govern society or rules made by the society to protect yourself and your fellow humans aswell as even other creatures and nature itself. Christianity does preach Morality but so does other religions and even those who don't follow a religion are able to understand what is right and wrong through their own moral perception. Religion is a safety net in which you can use to explain the moral choices or right and wrong, but even those without a religion can understand what is right and wrong and thus your reasoning is faulty. Had it been the case then Atheists would be running around killing and raping, creating anarchy but such is not the case. Is it not so?RJay123

Hmm I know what I'm trying to say but I'm probably not wording it right. ::gives up::

Not that I'm trying to goad you into a philosophical argument, but define good.

Real good people are good no matter what, not because of the advantages. I don't think people would do whatever they want without Christianity because there are lots of Christians that don't follow the Christian rules anyways.mayforcebeyou

I'm not saying you. I'm not saying anyone on this board, as everyone here on Gamespot tend to be more logical thinkers. But I'm saying there are people, mostly in the conservative areas of our country, who do things because they fear God and only because they fear God. Think about the radical evangelicals....everything they preach is geared toward making people afraid of God's punishment for not submitting to him. If kids are being taught to do things because their parents want them to be afraid of God, they won't know any better that things should be done because they are ethically right.