Comments on: Dwayne Wade Can Kiss My Ass

By: frahk

frahk — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:37:59 +0000

frahk…

I was thinking the same thing…

By: miroxadofojipicn

miroxadofojipicn — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:35:46 +0000

miroxadofojipicn…

nice post…

By: Matt S.

Matt S. — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:06:23 +0000

I take issue with moral relativism–as an atheist and a general philosopher I honestly find the idea both repugnant, and an argument that contains immediate logical fallacy. I take this excerpt from a philosophy website; “For example, someone might think that abortion is wrong relative to his moral theory, and that all violent means are justified in order to prevent women from having abortions, including the killing of doctors and nurses who might participate in such matters. For a moral relativist, such a position is just as valid as thinking that abortion should be protected, and so no reason can be given to stop any such violent campaign against abortion. The obvious conclusion is that it would be a big mistake to think that moral relativism supports any kind of liberal moral outlook. Under relativism, any non-liberal or absurd position is just as valid as any other. ”

Aside from the fact that it allows you to commit THIS fallacy, moral relativism fails an even simpler test. By claiming an absolute–that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong, it fails as even a logical statement, as the statement ITSELF can be neither right nor wrong, and thusly fails the test of propositional logic. (I also fail to trust any theory where you can just write something off as “that’s entirely relative.”)

I really think you should perhaps reclassify your view is “Moral Contextualism,” also described later in the same article. Under this moniker, you state that there are instances where something that would normally be wrong, can in fact be right, given the proper circumstances. Moral relativism fails not to the lens of any religion, but from the very light of logic and reason itself.

There is increasing evidence from the scientific community that traits as altruism and fairness are a part of our genetic code, giving powerful force to the idea that there are in fact, moral absolutes. Across human societies, it is largely considered wrong to murder, to take what is not yours, etc. This is fundamental to being a human being; something does not have to come from a mystical being in order to be an absolute.

Matt S.
Biotech Major,
Philsophy Minor

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p17.htm

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/relativism.php

By: Immanuel

Immanuel — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:03:57 +0000

Tommykey on November 28, 2006 at 1:09 pm said:

Funny then how some Jews considered Simon bar Kochba to be the Messiah when he won some initial victories against the Roman legions during the second Roman-Jewish war during the early second century. Guess Jesus did not make a strong enough impression on them.

The Jews were and still are looking for the Messiah. Their idea of Messiah is the one who will become king to rule over them and deliver them from their enemies. They thought is was Jesus but it wasn’t time for his kingdom to be established. TommyKey, you are quite the history buff.

By: Immanuel

Immanuel — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:59:24 +0000

corsair the rational pirate on November 28, 2006 at 10:55 am said:

Delta, it doesn’t seem strange to me because the disciples were still alive during those 50 years, why write, when they could still testify to what they had seen and heard.

Of course, if there were books written about the supposed Jesus during that 50 year stretch, then Immanuel would cite those as proof of his authenticity.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Biblical folks get to have it both ways and nyah nyah on the rest of you.

So, what is your explanation for the 50 year stretch? where did the apostles go? Are you denying that a man named ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ ever existed?