[magicman531]

Originally Posted by Ian Coe

An evil act is based on someones interpretation of evil


One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist

Same thing, different perspective

ding ding ding

Who is to say what is evil and what is good?

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by magicman531

ding ding ding

Who is to say what is evil and what is good?

The Good, that kinda shit's important to them/us.

There's never been a bad dude who complained, "Hey, that's GOOD!"

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

Nah, something laid it. Something that looks like a chicken, but not quite.

Hmm, not so fast.

How would this brand new chicken procreate ?

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

Hmm, not so fast.

How would this brand new chicken procreate ?

With other compatible "mutations," for lack of a better word, spawned of this not-a-chicken species.

[aNEWmmaFAN]

Originally Posted by magicman531

ding ding ding

Who is to say what is evil and what is good?

so if who is to say what is evil and what is good, then what makes youre statement superior than those stated

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by aNEWmmaFAN

so if who is to say what is evil and what is good, then what makes youre statement superior than those stated

Punctuation, probably.

[magicman531]

Originally Posted by aNEWmmaFAN

so if who is to say what is evil and what is good, then what makes youre statement superior than those stated

Because I said it. Therefore it's superior.

And is good/evil the same as right/wrong? Or to phrase it better, correct/incorrect.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

With other compatible "mutations," for lack of a better word, spawned of this not-a-chicken species.

So, these also were chickens somehow.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

So, these also were chickens somehow.

The mutations? Yes, they came to be called chickens. Other countries have different names. I don't know what they are.

Just kidding. My theory, as it stands, didn't happen at once or just with ONE egg (or chicken, if you prefer). The question was what came first: chicken or egg. That was the question. I maintain it was the egg -- because a chicken doesn't pop out from nowhere. Neither does an egg, but do you really think something that wasn't a chicken somehow BECAME a chicken during its lifetime?

I say the changes were made in the eggs.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by AJax

If evolution (atheistic) is true, then this is entirely correct, and objective moral values do not exist. So we must ask the question, DO objective moral values exist. An objective moral value is something that would be objectively right or wrong whether anyone believes it or not. For instance, child molestation would be wrong, even if the pedophile doesn't think it is.

Your point is well argued and is the intellectual position of many, but keep in mind that if true, we have no framework of justifying anything we do, or justifying why anything anybody else does is right or wrong. The problem is, our actions supersede our intellect, and we often don't live out the things we say and believe. (That of course can go two ways: it can be either someone does not practice what they preach, or it can mean that someone practices what they don't preach).

If you are correct, you would not be able to justify your feelings of why someone ought to do something, because your justification is based on your own cultural upbringing, and someone else's cultural upbringing may be different from yours. You may say this, but your actions are, I suspect, not often in agreement with this premise. Every day, you feel that someone "ought" or "ought not" do something, and if they don't, you wouldn't justify it based on your own cultural upbringing, would you?

Also, some atheist/evolutionists have written papers on how to justify objective moral values. So even they (ie Sam Harris) believes that objective right and wrong is a reality. I'm not using that as an argument; just food for thought.

Unfortunately this thread is going to be wastelanded.

I don't understand what you mean by "atheistic" evolution. Can you explain that to me? As for objective moral values, no, they cannot possibly exist in my opinion. Even if there is a god and he established those moral values, they would be HIS opinion of morality, making them subjective. As far as justifying my feelings, I absolutely feel I could. And you are caught up on this whole "cultural upbringing". I'm sorry, but things are not so cut-and-dry as that. One's behavior is based off their upbringing during the formative childhood years (1-7 yrs old) and their heredity based behavior. In other words, nature as well as nurture. When you take into account chemical imbalances in the brain, such as bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses, it can have a profound effect on our behavior, especially when you consider that many of these conditions are hereditary. Not to mention the fact that a child who was raised by someone with a mental condition will be profoundly affected by that during those formative years. And who's supposed to decide what the correct moral values are? Popular concensus dictates what's acceptable in society. It's immoral in some societies to eat pork. Well, what happens when everyone forgets about that rule? Is it still immoral?

p.s. I think you're using "justify" incorrectly. It's kind of confusing.