By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

Absolute morals proves there is something supernatural, and most people believe in absolute morals without knowing it or admitting it. And therefore they also believe in the supernatural without knowing it.

But morals aren't absolute, they are relative to people and their societies. Does Sweden have much in common on a moral ground with the Leopard society?

The leopard society was a society in west Africa which existed until the mid-20th century. They fully believed that it was morally acceptable, heck even encouraged, to find victims, kill them and eat their flesh. Is this a moral built into all humans, or just their society in particular? It take it this doesn't happen in Sweden.

So if you would somehow get the chance to back in time and visit them, you'd just be "This is cool guys, this makes perfect sense for you in your cultural context. Keep doing what you do."



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

Absolute morals proves there is something supernatural, and most people believe in absolute morals without knowing it or admitting it. And therefore they also believe in the supernatural without knowing it.

But morals aren't absolute, they are relative to people and their societies. Does Sweden have much in common on a moral ground with the Leopard society?

The leopard society was a society in west Africa which existed until the mid-20th century. They fully believed that it was morally acceptable, heck even encouraged, to find victims, kill them and eat their flesh. Is this a moral built into all humans, or just their society in particular? It take it this doesn't happen in Sweden.

So if you would somehow get the chance to back in time and visit them, you'd just be "This is cool guys, this makes perfect sense for you in your cultural context. Keep doing what you do."

Personally I wouldn't because cannibalism is seen as completely unacceptable in my society, I would be horrified. And that very fact proves my point.

If I went back in time and came across them I would condemn them because their morals differ so much from the morals of 21st century Britain. I certainly wouldn't be "cool" with it.

However, if I happened to be a child in their society I'm sure that growing up with people who saw killing and eating humans as morally acceptable would have made me think it was too.



highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

Absolute morals proves there is something supernatural, and most people believe in absolute morals without knowing it or admitting it. And therefore they also believe in the supernatural without knowing it.

But morals aren't absolute, they are relative to people and their societies. Does Sweden have much in common on a moral ground with the Leopard society?

The leopard society was a society in west Africa which existed until the mid-20th century. They fully believed that it was morally acceptable, heck even encouraged, to find victims, kill them and eat their flesh. Is this a moral built into all humans, or just their society in particular? It take it this doesn't happen in Sweden.

So if you would somehow get the chance to back in time and visit them, you'd just be "This is cool guys, this makes perfect sense for you in your cultural context. Keep doing what you do."

Personally I wouldn't because cannibalism is seen as completely unacceptable in my society, I would be horrified. And that very fact proves my point.

If I went back in time and came across them I would condemn them because their morals differ so much from the morals of 21st century Britain. I certainly wouldn't be "cool" with it.

On what grounds would you condemn them?



sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

Because everything cant come out of nothing. And by nothing, i really mean nothing. No time, no natural process of any kind, no life, no ANYTHING. Or are you assuming that God created the Big Bang which created the universe?

Where did God come from again in your view?


A God can not ''come from'' anything. However,that question goes far beyond my understanding as a mortal. But i think this quote from the article i posted is somehow related to that quesion:

The skeptic sometimes asks, "Well, then, who created God?" The answer is that no one created God, as he is eternal. A rule of logic states that every effect must have an antecedent cause. But God is not an effect; rather he is a cause. The logic here is simple but compelling. Since something exists, and since something cannot arise from nothing—and further that the universe itself is not eternal—something outside of the universe must be eternal. An infinite creator God must be that something. Time and space had a beginning, but God exists outside of time and space.

That's the lamest argument ever. If we're going with assumptions (as the ideea that the deity you worship exists and the necessity for it to exist are mere assumptions), there's absolutely no reason why one couldn't assume that the deity you worship (God), wasn't created by another being. Also what's outside time and space?

Actually I like this debate about the first cause.

But who says the first cause had to be a single one? What if 2 independent causes were in existence and then created everything else together? Two Gods ^_^

But what if there were 10 non-caused causes that together created the universe.

Awesome!

So how does that argument limit the amount of Gods to just one? Oh that's right it doesn't. It requires blind faith. Faith to even assume such a thing exists anyways.



Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

But morals aren't absolute, they are relative to people and their societies. Does Sweden have much in common on a moral ground with the Leopard society?

The leopard society was a society in west Africa which existed until the mid-20th century. They fully believed that it was morally acceptable, heck even encouraged, to find victims, kill them and eat their flesh. Is this a moral built into all humans, or just their society in particular? It take it this doesn't happen in Sweden.

So if you would somehow get the chance to back in time and visit them, you'd just be "This is cool guys, this makes perfect sense for you in your cultural context. Keep doing what you do."

Personally I wouldn't because cannibalism is seen as completely unacceptable in my society, I would be horrified. And that very fact proves my point.

If I went back in time and came across them I would condemn them because their morals differ so much from the morals of 21st century Britain. I certainly wouldn't be "cool" with it.

On what grounds would you condemn them?

In that l believe that murder and cannibalism are immoral acts, I would protest against them doing that. So it would be based on my personal feelings, feelings that most likely reflect the morals of my society.

They never saw murder and cannibalism as an immoral act. In their eyes it was completely acceptable to do these things.

But my personal feelings are irrelevant to mine or your point.

What matters is that these two societies have completely separate sets of morals, to the point that one of the most heinous crime in western society (killing and eating another human) is actually encouraged in the other society.

I ask, how can two societies be so radically different in their moral code, and yet their morals be absolute? It's actually impossible.



Around the Network

Of course dinosaurs co-exist with humans. I've been posting on here for a couple of years haven't I?

<------ Rawwwr!!



Signature goes here!

NiKKoM said:

He's right.... warriors from the future traveled back into time and used the dinosaurs as weapons to fight evil... I saw it on TV....

damn that show was awesome..


Yea, I used to love that show.  I had tons of Dino Riders action figures also.  I always thought having laser beams / turrents on dinosaurs was so cool.



@slimebeast:

Or else you wouldn't call yourself a humanist

??? When exactly did I ever call myself a humanist? If you can find a post where I called myself a humanist I'll give you a cookie.

you probably wouldn't vote

Why wouldn't I vote? I live within a society and am directly affected by laws and policies and political leaders. If these things had no impact on my life I wouldn't care what happnes around me, yet they do, so I can't a afford to be passive.

and you wouldn't discuss so much in these sort of topics as you do

Why not? It's just a discussion. I'm not trying (nor have I ever tried) to convince anyone of anything.

"hey, whatever floats your boat, man. You can believe in xenophobia and racism if you want. Your morals are just determined by your culture anyway so they're not better than mine."

First of all, as I said I live in a society. What other people think may have an impact on me (and on other people), especially if these people try to turn their personal morals into laws. I'd have no problem with the racist or homophobes or religious people if they didn't try to turn they're personal beleifs that should concer only them into laws that affect me/everybody.

Second, I never said that all morals are good, mainly because some cultures are inferior to others (at least that's how I view things).

You ever thought why?

Hmmm, well I pressume I have morals which I decided are good and correct and I've probably elevated them to a level of importance that may make them seem absolute (I think most people probably do this). Don't see any supernatural forces at work though. Plus the fact that people have different morals and hold them up to an absolute status kinda defeats your supernatural forces argument.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Think this is another candidate for the Nonsense section that I proposed in one of this guys other threads.



highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

But morals aren't absolute, they are relative to people and their societies. Does Sweden have much in common on a moral ground with the Leopard society?

The leopard society was a society in west Africa which existed until the mid-20th century. They fully believed that it was morally acceptable, heck even encouraged, to find victims, kill them and eat their flesh. Is this a moral built into all humans, or just their society in particular? It take it this doesn't happen in Sweden.

So if you would somehow get the chance to back in time and visit them, you'd just be "This is cool guys, this makes perfect sense for you in your cultural context. Keep doing what you do."

Personally I wouldn't because cannibalism is seen as completely unacceptable in my society, I would be horrified. And that very fact proves my point.

If I went back in time and came across them I would condemn them because their morals differ so much from the morals of 21st century Britain. I certainly wouldn't be "cool" with it.

On what grounds would you condemn them?

In that l believe that murder and cannibalism are immoral acts, I would protest against them doing that. So it would be based on my personal feelings, feelings that most likely reflect the morals of my society.

They never saw murder and cannibalism as an immoral act. In their eyes it was completely acceptable to do these things.

But my personal feelings are irrelevant to mine or your point.

What matters is that these two societies have completely separate sets of morals, to the point that one of the most heinous crime in western society (killing and eating another human) is actually encouraged in the other society.

I ask, how can two societies be so radically different in their moral code, and yet their morals be absolute? It's actually impossible.

Because the cannibals are wrong of course. Duh.