Do you believe in God?

[Michael Z]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: other than hearsay there is no concrete physical proof for a God, and therefore until such evidence manifests there is no reason to conclude that such a thing exists.

However, simply because I have not seen said evidence does not mean that it isn't there; hence I am open to the possibility of the existence of God, which ultimately makes me an agnostic rather than an atheist.

[Michael Z]

I believe in G-d, and a basic good and evil in the world. Moral relativism was proved to be a lie that masks great horrors by the holocaust, if no where wlse, and modern third world totalitarianism continues to prove the existence of evil in the world. And where there is evil, there must be good, or evil is meaningless. I.e., Hitler is w/o question evil. So Churchill, for all his flaws, is good.

I completely agree with you on moral relativism.  There is a clear right and wrong.  This has nothing to do with any gods for me though.

I personally find moral determinsim far more dangerous. Good and Evil are human constructs; the majority of humanity believes that Hitler was an evil man due to the process of socialisation which teaches us that certain things are bad and certain things are evil. Does this mean that morality is a worthless concept? Of course not. It is only in our interest to define Good and Evil, otherwise we cannot possibly hope to co-exist with each other. Morality is the code that makes life bearable. But it would be foolish to suggest that morality is anything other than a social construct.

Besides, there is a danger. What if one person or group, say, I dunno, the Nazis, state their subjective belief that it's good to, say, murder people based on race? What if they impose it on the rest of the population with the claim that that group's subjective beliefs hold a universal truth? It's precisely such a scenario where moral determinism (the belief that Good and Evil are God-given concepts that cannot be altered, as opposed to relativism) can prove extremely dangerous. Thus, paradoxically, moral relativism works precisely to stop people like Hitler, or at least that's what it's designed for.

[Michael Z]

It all depends on who determines morality...your argument only works for moral relativists, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense...

Not necessarily, since all moral relativists really do is acknowledge that good and evil are subjective (Hitler thought he was a good guy, QED) whereas determinists believe that the concept of morality is universal.

[Michael Z]

Phew, it's a relief to know that moral relativism successfully restrained Hitler. Just imagine how bad he would have been without moral relativism!

I did not say moral relativism restrained Hitler. I said moral determinism made him worse. Besides, moral relativism as many would interpret it did not take shape until the 1950s and therefore takes a wholly retrospective view of the Nazi regime. You're free to disagree with my viewpoint, but acknowledging my basic argument would help before making sarcastic remarks.