Sqrl said:
DTG said:
Sqrl said:
OK, so if someone believes homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than their religion that would be ok with you then? I'm pretty sure you would disagree with them no matter what the basis for their reasoning was.
I mean it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you are saying is that all other ways a person's decision can be influenced are acceptable...but if their decision was based on religion...well in that case thats just not right!
Its obvious you don't agree with the morality of many religions on these subjects (ie the ones you listed above) but I think you are just being dramatic when you say it's irrational. An irrational view is one that lacks reason and they are absolutely using reason here, we just don't agree with that line of reasoning. I hate to delve too much into the religious debate but I want to remind you that you believe there is no god and that the bible is simply a book on morals that was last valid some 2000 years ago and they believe there is a god and that the bible is his word with timeless validity. Both are beliefs and until one is proven correct neither can be legitimately given the favored title of "most rational".
|
The only rational view is moral relativism and anything that is based upon subjective moral reasoning doesn't belong in the white house.
|
You can make absolute statements all you want but it doesn't make them true. The fact is that if there is a god moral relativism is wrong, and until you prove that there isn't a god its actually you that is irrational for insisting that moral relativism is the only rational position.
Moral relativism is a rational position, but it is not the only one.
PS - MarcioSMG also makes a great point. Moral relativism is still a subjective set of morals, so what you're really saying is that morals have no place in the white house. I'm pretty sure thats not what you meant to say though.
|
The burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, does that mean he does or even "might"?
