And promoting immorality? How? The UN by and large adheres to an objective ethical standard, informed by ideals of human rights; religious morality, however, is subjective in nature.

So because something is not a matter of law it becomes subjective?! I think you REALLY need to think this through.

Peter.

I think I understand what you meant to say now, and it makes sense. What you meant to say was that religious morality can be controversial. Obviously "controversial" is a million miles away from "subjective", which religious morality of course cannot be.

For example, creationism versus evolution is controversial, but it cannot be subjective: one side has to be wrong. Same with morality.

Peter.

Peter: For example, creationism versus evolution is controversial, but it cannot be subjective: one side has to be wrong.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. Evolution is a scientific explanation. Creationsim is a religious interpretation of the origins of the universe, and not everyone subscribes to a Biblical Literalist view of it.

Even the Pope has stated that there is no conflict between the two. On October 27, 1996, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, Pope John Paul II declared his acceptance of evolution as a fact of nature and noted that there is no war between science and religion. "Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts…the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

Peter: Same with morality.
Luigi Novi: Peter, you obviously don't even understand what the words "subjective" and "objective" mean. Perhaps you should try looking them up. Morality is defined by basic accepted standards and criteria of behavior, not on immutable "facts" that exist in nature.

Luigi, what I meant by creationism was the idea that man was created by God as human, following animals and so on. What I meant by evolution was the idea that man evolved from fish in the sea. Those views are not compatable. One is true and one is false. Which one it is is controversial, but that doesn't make it subjective. It is still a matter of fact.

Morality is defined by basic accepted standards and criteria of behavior, not on immutable "facts" that exist in nature.

Didn't we have this argument a few weeks ago. The idea that morality is a "subjective matter of opinion" and that "all views are equally valid" is called relativism. It has no basis in real philosophy and violates every rule of common sense, which would state for example that "murder is wrong" is a view that is true and that "murder is fine" is a false view. I understand where you are coming from. Liberals hate to acknowledge that anything that is not a matter of law could be objective because that implies "intolerance" for certain opinions, but just because you say something is subjective doesn't make it so. If I remember correctly you agreed that relativism was garbage last time we argued this. All morality is objective by its very nature, or it is not morality.

Peter.

Luigi, what I meant by creationism was the idea that man was created by God as human, following animals and so on. What I meant by evolution was the idea that man evolved from fish in the sea. Those views are not compatable. One is true and one is false. Which one it is is controversial, but that doesn't make it subjective. It is still a matter of fact.

Wrong. The scientific process is an objective one. It involves theories, inferences, and raw data. Those who dismiss the objectivity of science are arguing from false premises. Conversely, the belief in higher powers is inherently an article of faith and, BY ITS NATURE, is subjective. There are no objective truths in faith, as it can be different for everyone. Agreement within religion can only come in the form of conventions, which are by no means objective.

And Luigi is right - morality is often an issue of societal conventions. Ethics, on the other hand, are universal and based on reason and logic, not religious belief. (For example, the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a moral belief, not an ethical one, since it cannot be defended objectively. But that is an issue for another forum.)

*sigh*

Can't you understand that all I am saying is that creationists and evolutionists cannot both be right? That is all I am saying.

As for your religious claims, they are exactly the same. There is no way that Muslims and Jews and Christians and so on can all be right. Either one or none of them are correct. The idea that they are compatable, subjective belief systems is nonsensical. Are you saying something is only a matter of fact once it loses its controversy? That the shape of the Earth was a matter of opinion before 1492? o_O

"Controversial" and "subjective" mean two different things.

Evolution Vs. Creationism is controversial and objective.

Blue Vs. Red as the best colour for a bathroom wall is controversial and subjective.

Flat Earth Vs. Round Earth is non-controversial and objective.

And Luigi is right - morality is often an issue of societal conventions.

That is a theory propounded by sociologists that inevitably leads to relativism.

Ethics, on the other hand, are universal and based on reason and logic, not religious belief.

You are splitting hairs. Ethics and morality are not clear cut like that. Ethics does not exclude religious ideals.

For example, the belief that homosexuality is "wrong" is a moral belief, not an ethical one, since it cannot be defended objectively. But that is an issue for another forum.

It is indeed, but it can be certainly be defended objectively. You know that. If you mean it cannot be defended without bringing in religion, how about this:

1) The vagina was designed for intercourse. The anus clearly was not.
2) Each person has some sort of duty to continue the human race. Opting out for an unnatural way of life is selfish.
3) AIDS is spread most by gays and fewer gays means fewer people dying from AIDS.

There are more arguments, but that was just an example. You may not agree with those ideas, but you cannot deny they exist as a defence of the immorality of homosexuality. You don't need to believe in God or Allah or something to accept them.

Peter.

AIDS is spread most by gays and fewer gays means fewer people dying from AIDS.

And yet you WONDER why we call you a bigot? Fewer gays means fewer dying from AIDS? Bullsh*t!

Peter, as I said, we should leave those issues for the proper forums...

Evolution Vs. Creationism is controversial and objective.

How can the belief in Creationism be said to be objective? Faith, by nature, is inherently subjective. Science, however, is objective.

Anyway, we are straying from the topic.

Brian, I have not heard anyone with an ounce of sense call me a bigot. The only time this term has come up is when some ignorant liberals have made out that bigotry is to express any view other than the PC guidelines they follow. Assuming you mean all you say in your more serene moments, you are perhaps the most bigoted person I have ever spoken to. As for the remark in question, just look up the figures and you will see how right I am.

How can the belief in Creationism be said to be objective? Faith, by nature, is inherently subjective. Science, however, is objective.

You are the one who keeps bringing faith into things, not me. I don't see how it is relevant, and I don't understand why it is you have so much trouble grasping the idea that I keep making again and again. Hell, I am sure others understand. Perhaps they can explain it better than me?

Now listen, faith aside, creationism is an idea about how the world began. It excludes the idea of evolution because you cannot believe in Darwinian evolution while still believing in creationism. Now only one of these ideas can be true. Perhaps neither is true, but one is closer to the truth. Certainly, they cannot both be true. Therefore evolutionism versus creationism is a matter of fact. We don't know for sure who is right and who is wrong, but that doesn't change the factual nature of the debate. Let's just assume that evolution turns out to be correct and this is proved beyond any doubt in 20 years. You can believe all you like that creationism is true in that time, but it doesn't change the truth: that evolution is true. The beginnings of man are objective facts. They are controversial, but that does not make them subjective. There is no way on Earth creationism could be true for one man and evolution could be equally true for another. At least one of them is wrong. Now do you see my point? You are making the fairly common error of assuming that there are no facts but known facts (which is, incidentally, the basis of the mathematics of probability*).

Peter.

*When we say that tossing a coin could mean heads or tails and the odds are 50/50, all we are really saying is we have no knowledge to suggest that one outcome is any more likely than another. I will toss a coin now. The time is 21:25. Okay at 21:26 the outcome was heads. Now we know for certain what the outcome was. The trouble was the outcome was always certain: I was always going to toss the coin in such a way as to produce that outcome. The odds were not 50/50 at all, but 100/0 - with the 100% being for heads. We use ideas like probability to express facts when we don't know what the facts are. But just because the facts are not known doesn't mean they do not exist.

Peter: Luigi, what I meant by creationism was the idea that man was created by God as human, following animals and so on. What I meant by evolution was the idea that man evolved from fish in the sea. Those views are not compatable.
Luigi Novi: Only if you take a literalist view of creationism and the six days thereof. I don’t. The Pope doesn’t. St. Augustine didn’t. If you do take a literalist view of it, well then, sure, Peter, they are incompatible.

Luigi: Morality is defined by basic accepted standards and criteria of behavior, not on immutable "facts" that exist in nature.

Peter: Didn't we have this argument a few weeks ago. The idea that morality is a "subjective matter of opinion" and that "all views are equally valid" is called relativism.
Luigi Novi: I never said all views were equally valid. I merely said that morality was not objective. That doesn’t mean, Peter, that a morality based on the basic view that it’s wrong to cause harm without cause is invalid. You use words as a means of value judgement, rather than as a means of proper diction.

Peter: It has no basis in real philosophy and violates every rule of common sense, which would state for example that "murder is wrong" is a view that is true and that "murder is fine" is a false view. I understand where you are coming from.
Luigi Novi: Peter, in all fairness and honesty, it is clear that you wouldn’t understand ANYONE whose views differ from your own if you had a map and a slide rule. You are too comfortable in attacking, insulting, demonizing and presuming to read the minds of those who disagree with you to ever truly understand where they are coming from.

Peter: Liberals hate to acknowledge that anything that is not a matter of law could be objective because that implies "intolerance" for certain opinions…
Luigi Novi: "Objective" has nothing to do with whether something is :law" or with "intolerance." LOOK UP THE WORD, Peter.

Peter: If I remember correctly you agreed that relativism was garbage last time we argued this.
Luigi Novi: If I remember correctly, I said I didn’t believe in it.

The validity of morality is entirely separate from the question of whether it is objective or subjective. Relativism may USE the fact that morality is subjective as a MEANS to promote the idea that all different morality systems are equally VALID. I do not.

I believe female circumcision is wrong. Why? Because it is wrong to treat another human being as a slave. It is wrong to mutilate or cause intense pain and permanent lifelong suffering, simply because one is afraid a prospective suitor won’t marry my daughter. It is wrong to treat women (or anyone) as property. That I believe female circumcision is wrong is traced back to these core beliefs. It is not, and cannot be traced back to anything that is free from the influence of bias, emotion, or personal experience, or which exists in nature, like scientific or mathematical principles, and it doesn’t need to be in order to be valid.

Peter: All morality is objective by its very nature, or it is not morality.
Luigi Novi: Only if they change the definition of the word, Peter.

Peter: Are you saying something is only a matter of fact once it loses its controversy? That the shape of the Earth was a matter of opinion before 1492?
Luigi Novi: The Earth was known to be round long before 1492. Try not to get your history from Washington Irving, Peter, okay?

Peter: If you mean it cannot be defended without bringing in religion, how about this:

1) The vagina was designed for intercourse. The anus clearly was not.
Luigi Novi: Which means that kissing, ear nibbling, or fondling a spouse’s breasts or buttocks are all equally wrong because those body parts were not designed for those things.

Peter: 2) Each person has some sort of duty to continue the human race.
Luigi Novi: No, they don’t. If I don’t wish to get married or have kids, I don’t have to.

Peter: Opting out for an unnatural way of life is selfish.
Luigi Novi: There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is any less natural than heterosexuality, and what preliminary evidence there is suggests it’s just as natural.

What is selfish is to say that a homosexual should couple with someone they are not attracted to, which is what you have to do in order to say that they should marry a member of the opposite sex in order to continue the human race.

Peter: 3) AIDS is spread most by gays and fewer gays means fewer people dying from AIDS.
Luigi Novi: Untrue.

Peter: just look up the figures and you will see how right I am.
Luigi Novi: But when it comes to all the science derived from studies of whether homosexuality is natural or not, THAT you deny. Why? You simply look for material that ratifies your preconceived notions, and deliberately ignore that which doesn’t. This is known in cognitive psychology as confirmation bias. Either you defer to all the experts in a given field, or you don’t Peter. Quit straddling the fence.

*When we say that tossing a coin could mean heads or tails and the odds are 50/50, all we are really saying is we have no knowledge to suggest that one outcome is any more likely than another. I will toss a coin now. The time is 21:25. Okay at 21:26 the outcome was heads. Now we know for certain what the outcome was. The trouble was the outcome was always certain: I was always going to toss the coin in such a way as to produce that outcome. The odds were not 50/50 at all, but 100/0 - with the 100% being for heads. We use ideas like probability to express facts when we don't know what the facts are. But just because the facts are not known doesn't mean they do not exist.

Peter, go read a Stats textbook.

Firstly, when dealing with probability, the misleading term "odds" is not employed. In the case of flipping a coin, the event of getting a head is said to be equally likely as getting a tail. Thus the theoretical probability of getting a head is 0.50. However, the experimental probability does not become 1.00 in the case of a head. One trial is not enough to prove this.

Moreover, your analogy is specious. Probability theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the evolution/creation "debate." The former is a scientific theory, the latter a religious belief. Aside from the fact that there is NO WAY to calculuate a theoretical probability concerning which is right, you are misinterpreting the inherant uncertainty in any scientific theory with some sort of hairbrained version of the science of probability.

Evolution, like all science, is imperfect. Creation is a religious belief. If it is right, evolution is not automatically wrong, and vice-versa. You are arguing fallaciously.

1) The vagina was designed for intercourse. The anus clearly was not.

Than how come a person on the recieving end of anal sex can orgasam from it.

2) Each person has some sort of duty to continue the human race. Opting out for an unnatural way of life is selfish.

What about people who don't get married or ever have sex? What about Nuns and Cathlic Preists? What about overpopulation; ever think that homosexuality could be one of nature's ways of slowing population growth?

Uh, no. Isn't God all powerful enough he can be two people. According to some, God is three intities. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus was God made flesh on Earth. God was in Heaven. If God wants to meet himself on a corner why can't he? Besides, both men could be wrong.

Josh, I give up. I have tried and tried to explain myself to no avail. I don't know what more I can do but repeat myself. Why don't you look at what I have said and think carefully about it and not comment until it makes some kind of logical sense in your mind? I don't really have any interest in debating this with you when you have no idea what I am talking about. And the probability analogy is correct: the odds are always 100/0, not 50/50. We say fifty-fifty because we have no way of knowing on which side the hundred is.

Only if you take a literalist view of creationism and the six days thereof. I don’t. The Pope doesn’t. St. Augustine didn’t. If you do take a literalist view of it, well then, sure, Peter, they are incompatible.

Which is the only point I was trying to make. And no, I don't take the creation story literally.

I merely said that morality was not objective. That doesn’t mean, Peter, that a morality based on the basic view that it’s wrong to cause harm without cause is invalid.

No, but it makes it a subjective view with as much validity and compulsion to other people as the view that blue is a nice colour for the bathroom curtains. Don't you understand that the "belief" that morality is subjective is the same as the "belief" that morality is relative? What is the difference in your mind between the two?

"Objective" has nothing to do with whether something is "law" or with "intolerance." LOOK UP THE WORD, Peter.

Of course it does. It is immoral to fornicate, commit adultery, lie and sodomise. Liberals can get around that by saying "your morality is fine and dandy, but I have my own equally valid morality that says I can do whatever I like. You follow your morality and I'll follow mine". This is moral relativism. Obviously one of those people is wrong, but by pretending morality is relative, which I admit it does appear to be at first sight to those who won't investigate further, the liberal can get around that.

The validity of morality is entirely separate from the question of whether it is objective or subjective.

I am sorry but you clearly haven't thought this through. If morality is objective, then only one moral code can be valid and all the rest invalid. If it is subjective, then supposedly all codes are valid to that person, because none is dominant over another. Of course, under such circumstances, morality is entirely arbitrary. It simply means "I'll do as I please because no way is better than any other". Without objectivity, morality becomes completely arbitrary.

Only if they change the definition of the word, Peter.

Okay. Explain to me, using subjective morality, why you think female circumcision is wrong.

That I believe female circumcision is wrong is traced back to these core beliefs. It is not, and cannot be traced back to anything that is free from the influence of bias, emotion, or personal experience, or which exists in nature, like scientific or mathematical principles

God

it doesn’t need to be in order to be valid.

It needs to be if you want it to be any more valid than every other moral code in the universe.

Which means that kissing, ear nibbling, or fondling a spouse’s breasts or buttocks are all equally wrong because those body parts were not designed for those things.

Touching and kissing are not simulated sex. Anal sex is simply masturbation.

No, they don’t. If I don’t wish to get married or have kids, I don’t have to.

You don't have to, but you are being selfish if you choose not to.

There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is any less natural than heterosexuality, and what preliminary evidence there is suggests it’s just as natural.

It is less natural because it is a rather perverse preference of a tiny proportion of the population. It is unnatural because the anus was not designed for sex, and the body was designed to be self-replicating. You may as well say there is no scientific evidence that necrophilia or paedophilia is unnatural.

Untrue.

Look at the figures given on the AIDS page. See for yourself.

But when it comes to all the science derived from studies of whether homosexuality is natural or not, THAT you deny. Why?

I have not seen any study into that. It is an absurd concept to even consider studying it.

Than how come a person on the recieving end of anal sex can orgasam from it.

Orgasm as in ejaculate? They can certainly feel pleasure by stimulating the nerves inside the anus with a •••••. But those nerves were designed to make it easier to s***.

Peter.

If a man is pointing to something another man looks where he is pointing. A dog looks at his finger.

It is immoral to fornicate.

Ha! You have just proven how much of a fool you are Peter. Fornication is sex! Your parents had to fornicate in order to make you, so are you saying your parents are immoral?

You know what my sister would do if you started your "Homosexuality is a perversion,a sin, and unnatural" krap in front of her? She'd start making out with her girlfriend. Imaging the look on your face is so funny, I completely forgot what angry bitter, PO'ed, sick-and-tired-of-hearing-the-same-old-•••••••• thing I was going to say to you.

Luigi Novi: But when it comes to all the science derived from studies of whether homosexuality is natural or not, THAT you deny. Why? You simply look for material that ratifies your preconceived notions, and deliberately ignore that which doesn’t. This is known in cognitive psychology as confirmation bias. Either you defer to all the experts in a given field, or you don’t Peter. Quit straddling the fence.

Here, here! Lugi has hit the nail sqaure on the ••••••• head! You are a genius young man, an utter ••••••• genius!

Ha! You have just proven how much of a fool you are Peter. Fornication is sex! Your parents had to fornicate in order to make you, so are you saying your parents are immoral?

Fornicating is having sex before marriage, retard.

As for your sister, what is your point? She would have sex in public just to annoy someone? You have never been a prize debtater, Webber, but this is the first time I have heard anyone try to win an argument by pointing out "Hey my sister is an exhibitionist, sexually deviant slut".

Peter.

Not that I believe in God, but why is evolution incompatible with creation 6000 years ago? Can't God create something so that it exists before the moment of creation as well as after?

Perhaps God creating the universe is like a man writing a book (like Lord of the Rings) where the characters look back to ancient events which occurred before the start of the story. The 6 days of creation wouldn't be the time from the start of the universe to its completion. They would be the time it took to write down what happened.

To paraphrase Pratchett's 'The Last Continent', "I know that's been here for thousands of years, but was it here for thousands of years 5 minutes ago?."

--

Liberals (say) I have my own equally valid morality that says I can do whatever I like.

What nonsense. Do you really suppose that liberals don't have to adjust their behaviour because their morallity tells them to!

They can certainly feel pleasure by stimulating the nerves inside the anus with a •••••. But those nerves were designed to make it easier to s***.

I believe the pleasure comes from stimulating the prostate gland through the rectum. The prostate gland is a sex organ. The nerves there are designed for sexual pleasure.

I recently saw a TV programme where someone listed all the 'disgusting things homosexuals do to each other'. Curiously, not one of the acts listed was exclusively practiced by homosexuals...

Anyway, why the fixation with the sex act? It implies that there is nothing to these people beyond their sexual orientation. It objectifies them, allows you to be prejudiced against them without having to deal with them as people. That's wrong.

Homophobes often rant on about how disgusted they are at the thought of gay sex. These people are actually imagining gay people having sex.

Now hold on a minute! If you hear that someone is heterosexual, do you immediately imagine them having straight sex? In every sordid detail? If you did, would that image actually be pleasurable? In many cases the image would be downright ugly.

Peter, you say anal sex is a form of masturbation. I say that imagining people having sex without their consent is a form of rape. Don't do it!

On the 'duty to reproduce', how do you quantify that? How do you decide that a person who fails to reproduce, but tries to support the community, serves the race better, (or is more selfish) than someone who has four kids and lets them terrorise the neighbourhood?

I have not seen any study into that. It is an absurd concept to even consider studying it.

With that one statement you have invalidated any opinion you may hold. You might as well say 'I know the world is flat, so there's no need to go and look, or to stop torturing this heretic who says it's round.' With this attitude, Peter, the best you can hope for is to be right by accident.

"Hey my sister is an exhibitionist, sexually deviant slut"

Subjective, Peter. Try Proud, Assertive, Confident, well adjusted to her sexuality, determined not to suppress the calling of her heart in order to validate the world-view of strangers.

You like to exhibit your beliefs in front or people who disapprove. Are you really so different to her?

For the record, I'm hetero, liberal, and definitely not Politically Correct.

Josh, I give up. I have tried and tried to explain myself to no avail. I don't know what more I can do but repeat myself. Why don't you look at what I have said and think carefully about it and not comment until it makes some kind of logical sense in your mind? I don't really have any interest in debating this with you when you have no idea what I am talking about.

You presume that your arguments are particularly challenging. You say that literalist Creation and evolution cannot both be correct, as they are contradictory. True.

However, you are attempting to tell us that the belief in literal Biblical Creation is objective. It is not. Let's look at your exact words:

Now listen, faith aside, creationism is an idea about how the world began.

Indeed, it is an idea informed by faith in a higher being, one that depends entirely on one's subjective belief in said higher being. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, any idea dependent on God's existence depends entirely on an individual's subjective opinion (faith) in God.

It excludes the idea of evolution because you cannot believe in Darwinian evolution while still believing in creationism. Now only one of these ideas can be true.

Indeed, but more precisely one cannot simultaneously accept evolution and a Biblical LITERALIST view of Creation.

Perhaps neither is true, but one is closer to the truth. Certainly, they cannot both be true. Therefore evolutionism versus creationism is a matter of fact.

The fact is that the "debate," such as it is, exists as a matter of fact. However, this says nothing about the nature of the two competing views.

We don't know for sure who is right and who is wrong, but that doesn't change the factual
nature of the debate.

No, we KNOW, using science, that Creation, as literally described in the Bible cannot be true.

Let's just assume that evolution turns out to be correct and this is proved beyond any doubt in 20 years. You can believe all you like that
creationism is true in that time, but it doesn't change the truth: that evolution is true.

Indeed.

The beginnings of man are objective facts. They are controversial, but that does not make them subjective.

No, Biblical Creation is a religious belief and thus INHERENTLY subjective in nature. Evolution, like all science, is objective.

There is no way on Earth creationism could be
true for one man and evolution could be equally true for another. At least one of them is wrong.

Creationism could be "true" for an individual who believed in it. That's what faith is: believing in something regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Now do you see my point? You are making the fairly common error of assuming that there are no facts but known facts (which is, incidentally, the
basis of the mathematics of probability*).

Perhaps we should stop throwing around the word "fact." Evolution is just a scientific theory. That is to say that it's merely the best explanation and description of certain observed phenomona. And, like all science, it's in a continuous process of change and development. It is objective in nature.

Literalist Creation is neither science nor in a state of ongoing development. It is a static, subjective religious idea.

And the probability analogy is correct: the odds are always 100/0, not 50/50. We say fifty-fifty because we have no way of knowing on which side the hundred is.

That's NOT probability! There are no "odds" to speak of. Probability describes the likelihood of events, not the correctness of a scientific theory or religious doctrine. Similarly, by saying that the "odds" are fifty-fifty you are saying that both events are equally likely to occur.

Because the debate in question is one of theology and science, there is no randomness involved, and consequently probability has no relation to this issue.

Peter, if you have only limited experience in Statistics and Probability, say so. Do not attempt to provide poor analogies that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Sophie Hawksworth: Peter, you say anal sex is a form of masturbation. I say that imagining people having sex without their consent is a form of rape. Don't do it!

Not quite. What you describe is more comparable to voyeurism. If you imagined, without their permission, yourself having sex with someone else, that would be comparable to rape, using Peter's flawed reasoning.

(Note: I, personally, disagree with the belief that innocent fantasies are inherently wrong. The primary reference is to the 10th commandment, "Thou shalt not covet ...," in which I believe covet is being misunderstood to mean any want or desire, even casually, when I feel it more correctly refers to much stronger feelings, i.e. jealousy, etc.)

Not that I believe in God, but why is evolution incompatible with creation 6000 years ago?

It isn't. It is incompatable with the creation story as told in the Bible.

What nonsense. Do you really suppose that liberals don't have to adjust their behaviour because their morallity tells them to!

You have it backwards. Liberals have no higher authority than themselves to answer to, so any motivating moral code is based entirely on what they want and enjoy doing, though this does not exclude a conscience and sense of duty.

The nerves there are designed for sexual pleasure.

Wait a minute. Designed by whom? If by God, then why? If by natural selection, then what benefit does anal sex bring to the species?

Anyway, why the fixation with the sex act? It implies that there is nothing to these people beyond their sexual orientation.

Not at all. I think sexual lust is one of the least important things about a person, and it isn't any reason I would have to dislike someone. However, that said, it does not make their behaviour normal, natural or right.

Homophobes often rant on about how disgusted they are at the thought of gay sex. These people are actually imagining gay people having sex.

Now hold on a minute! If you hear that someone is heterosexual, do you immediately imagine them having straight sex? In every sordid detail? If you did, would that image actually be pleasurable? In many cases the image would be downright ugly.

FYI, a "homophobe" is someone with a fear of like, not someone who believes in the immorality of homosexuality, or hates gays or whatever. Do your argument the justice of leaving out prejudiced terms for its opponents.

As for the idea that anal sex between men is disgusting, what precisely is your point? I don't remember indicating I gave much thought to it. Anyway, even if I had, your comparison is flawed. Comparing homosexuality to normality makes no sense. A better, though imperfect, comparison would be "If you hear that someone is a necrophiliac, do you immediately imagine them having straight sex with a corpse?" The answer is "Yes"!

On the 'duty to reproduce', how do you quantify that? How do you decide that a person who fails to reproduce, but tries to support the community, serves the race better, (or is more selfish) than someone who has four kids and lets them terrorise the neighbourhood?

If someone fails to reproduce obviously they cannot be blamed for it.

Try Proud, Assertive, Confident, well adjusted to her sexuality, determined not to suppress the calling of her heart in order to validate the world-view of strangers.

Uh huh. You are about as convincing as an advocate of modern art. There is nothing "subjective" about public lesbian sex. It is disgusting.

You like to exhibit your beliefs in front or people who disapprove. Are you really so different to her?

Actually, I rather hate debating here. There are some thoughtful and sensible posters, but I also get attacked constantly by some of the most bigoted, small minded, nasty people I have ever communicated with. I am very good at classroom style debates, and so on, but I probably fail in terms of the written word. When I make a good argument in a real debate, it can't be ignored by the opposition, or refuted with a ridiculous statement like "flag burners are normal and patriotic" or something. I also tend to argue from pure logic, and that means I am unwilling to propose any argument for my own side that I myself can see through. Again, this is probably a short coming on a forum like this, where it is easy to misinterpret and misrepresent, and where logic counts for little.

I debate mainly through force of habit and because when I see someone putting forward a false argument I feel compelled to show them the light.

For the record, I'm hetero, liberal, and definitely not Politically Correct.

Well in my experience only the politically correct use words like "homophobe", a word which is probably the best representation of political correctness of all. It makes out that any view but the advocate's is a sort of sickness - that fear and hate motivate their opponent, and can easily be associated with racialism and xenophobia so on. The purpose of using "homophobe" in such a way is to make certain views (any but that of the liberals) unspeakable in public and eventually unthinkable. Screaming "homophobe" in any debate is a signal for reason to stop and for people to stop listening to the speaker because he has some sort of phobia that makes his ideas worthless.

If you believe moral and political objection to homosexuality is a sickness and those who hold such views are "homophobic" then you are about as politically correct as you can get.

Or maybe you simply misunderstood and you used a bigoted, PC term like "homophobia" without thinking. I'd like to think so.

Peter.

Josh, as I said, if you understood what I was saying you would not be responding in the way you do. I am sure you are not being deliberately stubborn or obtuse. You just genuinely are reading meanings into my words that are not there. Until someone can explain what I was saying in a different way, there is nothing more I can do, as I cannot think of any other way of clarifying my argument.

If you imagined, without their permission, yourself having sex with someone else, that would be comparable to rape, using Peter's flawed reasoning.

Uhm, I think you mean "using Sophie's flawed reasoning". I am pretty sure she was joking when she said it too. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Peter.

Josh G.: No, we KNOW, using science, that Creation, as literally described in the Bible cannot be true.

No legitimate scientist would ever claim we KNOW anything. We may have sufficent evidence to believe or disbelieve the postulate in question, but we can never truely KNOW anything. All results are ultimately based on readings from potentially inaccurate machines or observations from potentially biased, and nortiously unreliable, human witnesses.

The only discipline which can even approach the rigor you suggest is Mathematics, and only because it is an artificial construct with clearly defined rules.

You have it backwards. Liberals have no higher authority than themselves to answer to, so any motivating moral code is based entirely on what they want and enjoy doing, though this does not exclude a conscience and sense of duty.

That's invalid.

- Liberals have no higher authority than themselves to answer to.

>> Therefore, their motivating moral code is based entirely on what they want and enjoy doing (i.e., they're hedonists), though this does not exclude a conscience and sense of duty.

Now, does that conclusion follow from that premise? No... so it's invalid and not terribly logical. Moreover, what makes you think that all liberals are hedonists? Fundamentally, liberals believe that human happiness is best achieved by the pursuit of individuality, which is not necessarily hedonistic in nature. Lastly, you assume that all "liberals" are atheists or are without any sort of religiously informed moral code; that sounds like a gross generalization to me.

No legitimate scientist would ever claim we KNOW anything. We may have sufficent evidence to believe or disbelieve the postulate in question, but we can never truely KNOW anything. All results are ultimately based on readings from potentially inaccurate machines or observations from potentially biased, and nortiously unreliable, human witnesses.

True to some extent, but science is not as inaccurate as you would suggest - that's why we have peer review and repeated experimentation.

Now, ultimately Creation depends on faith on God, which is entirely subjective in nature. It cannot be proven one way or another, and does not stand up to scientific theory. In short, because Biblical Creation cannot be tested in any way, and its "truth" depends on our individual faith. It's a religious myth, not a scientific theory. But I've said that enough already.

Peter, all I am saying is that, while the Creation vs. Evolution debate is objective insofar as reason and logic can be used to argue the points.

However, Creation, as a function of religious faith, is, BY DEFINITION, a SUBJECTIVE view. Evolution, as a function of science, is, by contrast, an OBJECTIVE view based on reason.

You're right. I should not have used a religious figure. If two guys saying they are Elvis are on a street corner, one must be wrong. (Both may be wrong, but from the evidence given we do not know that and this example assumes time travel and paralell universes that interact with one another are impossibilities. Do I have enough caveats yet. Oh, no faster than light travel either.)

They could both be right. One could be Elvis Preseley and the other could be Elvis Costello. :=)

Peter: Well in my experience only the politically correct use words like "homophobe"

Well, in my experience, I've only seen spotted cows, so all cows are spotted.

Sorry, Peter, but that's a flawed argument.

Uh huh. You are about as convincing as an advocate of modern art. There is nothing "subjective" about public lesbian sex. It is disgusting.

Speak for yourself. I would find it very sexy if the girls were pretty.

Actually, I rather hate debating here. There are some thoughtful and sensible posters

So you finally admit it?

but I also get attacked constantly by some of the most bigoted, small minded, nasty people I have ever communicated with.

You debate yourself, then?


Listen, pal. If you were attacked, it is only because you yourself opened that pandora's box. Now, you called me a "brat," a "clone of her generation," "d*mned liberal" (that one I won't dispute), what have you. And that's just me personally. There are so many other regulars (and lurkers)...

Not to mention "leather bondage whips" and other gems that show just how you are so much more open-minded than I.

Anyways, I shall leave it as this for now because I am chatting w/ my boyfriend.

"Actually, I rather hate debating here." - Peter

Well, this has been asked several times in the past, I'll be fool enough to ask it again. If you hate us so much, if you hate Nitcentral so much, why on Earth do you continue to post here? It flat-out does not make any sense for you to hold so many of us in contempt and still participate in these discussions. I know the odds are greatly against you ever giving us an answer to this question (and god or whatever's out there knows why you won't give us an answer). Still, I thought I'd ask one more time.

Sorry, Peter, but that's a flawed argument.

I don't think I made an argument exactly. I was just saying I don't remember a tolerant, normal person using a word like "homophobe".

Peter.

Peter: Don't you understand that the "belief" that morality is subjective is the same as the "belief" that morality is relative? What is the difference in your mind between the two?
Luigi Novi: I could’ve sworn I answered that above. Relativism, as you’ve mentioned, argues that all moral views are equally valid. I don’t. Morality is subjective. That doesn’t mean that I can’t hold a moral code based on certain standard criteria and core beliefs and adhere to it, and state that that is right, and others wrong.

Luigi: "Objective" has nothing to do with whether something is "law" or with "intolerance." LOOK UP THE WORD, Peter.

Peter: Of course it does.
Luigi Novi: Then show me one dictionary entry that mentions it. You insist, with so much obtusity, that "homophobe" means only fear, rather than hatred, when any honest, mature debater with common sense would acknowledge that it is most certainly used to describe people with negative views toward gays, be it "fear" or "hatred." (If it meant only those "afraid" of them, it would be a word that described something that didn’t exist, since there is no such group of people known for being "afraid" of gays, which would make no sense.) But hey, let’s say you’re right, and keep the definition as narrow as you say. Show me where "objective" is defined in the dictionary as pertaining to "law" or "intolerance". It doesn’t. "Objective" means to be uninfluenced by bias, emotion, preconception or self-interest. When a person says "my moral view is the right one", of course they’re being subjective. They are favoring their upbringing as the superior one, just as three other people from three other upbringings would theirs.

For this reason, I don’t argue that the only "right" morality is one in which every view mirrors my own, as you do, Peter. I argue that a morality based on individual freedom to pursue happiness, the agreement not to cause others harm without cause or justification, and rule of law (where said laws reflect the aforementioned virtue) is the best one in which people of diverse tastes, backgrounds and sensibilities can coexist, and that if one person or group doesn’t like said element or behavior (homosexuality, porn, etc.) based on idiosyncratic, emotional or religious reasons, then that group should not associate with that behavior or element, or with those who do. This way, I don’t have to "prove" that this system is correct as a matter of fact (which I’d have to do if I asserted that it was "objectively" the best), I simply make sure it remains consistent with those fundamental beliefs. None of this has anything to do with "liberal," or "relativism" or "no moral authority."

Peter: It is immoral to fornicate..
Luigi Novi: I say it’s not. Period.

Peter: commit adultery…
Luigi Novi: Agreed.

Peter: …lie…
Luigi Novi: Depends on the circumstances.

Peter: …and sodomise.
Luigi Novi: I say it’s not.

Peter: Liberals can get around that by saying "your morality is fine and dandy, but I have my own equally valid morality that says I can do whatever I like. You follow your morality and I'll follow mine". This is moral relativism.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s people DISAGREEING.

As I said, I don’t believe all moral systems are equally valid. Therefore, by definition, disagreeing with simply ONE OF THEM isn’t relativism.

Luigi Novi: The validity of morality is entirely separate from the question of whether it is objective or subjective.

Peter: I am sorry but you clearly haven't thought this through.
Luigi Novi: NO, I have thought it through, and I have come to a belief that is different from yours. I’m sorry that you feel that thinking, by definition, can result only in your conclusions, and mine can only come about by not doing so. Again, the presumption and condescension abounds in your statements. You not only disagree with others, but presume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you must have some mental defect, an inability to think, or even lack of a soul in order to do so. To you, such assertions are merely self-serving and self-promoting. You attach concepts that imply or connote "right-ness" to your beliefs and the opposite properties to those of others.

My conclusions: Decent----------Others: Indecent.
My conclusions: Moral------------Others: Immoral.
My conclusions: Objective--------Others: Subjective.
My conclusions :Require thinking.-Others: Require that you don’t.

Peter: If morality is objective, then only one moral code can be valid and all the rest invalid. If it is subjective, then supposedly all codes are valid to that person, because none is dominant over another.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Subjectivity and validity are two different things. They DON’T MEAN THE SAME THING, Peter. You incorrectly taking one to connote the other as a value judgement.

Example:
When comics writer/illustrator Erik Larsen did a story in his book The Savage Dragon featuring the main character meeting God and the Devil, a letter writer later wrote in that Larsen’s depictions and premises regarding the sole, and God and so forth, were incorrect, because, according to the Bible passages he cited, it was FACT that this was so, and that was so, etc., and Erik’s interpretation was wrong. This letter writer didn’t use the word "fact" because he examined the definition of the word, and the disputed premises in question qualified. He used the word because he perceived a greater POWER in the word, or a greater connotation of validity in it, and felt his argument would sound stronger. "Religious truth" or "spiritual belief" or "church dogma" probably didn’t sound strong enough for him, so he arbitrarily used the word "fact," even though it didn’t apply.

So it happens with your use of the words "objective" and "subjective." All moral systems are subjective, because each culture evolves differently from another, as do the cultural mores and beliefs in each society. Each, when encountering people from another, will assert that theirs is the "right" one. This does NOT mean that they are all RIGHT. If someone tells me that honor killing is right, I will say, no, you’re wrong, period. I may have to live on a planet filled with different moral systems, and from a diplomatic standpoint, I have respect other cultures, but that doesn’t mean I won’t stick to my aforementioned standards as the correct ones. It is wrong to own or treat other people as property. It is wrong to hurt others without cause. This is a subjective worldview, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t right.

Luigi Novi: Only if they change the definition of the word, Peter.

Peter: Okay. Explain to me, using subjective morality, why you think female circumcision is wrong.
Luigi Novi: I just did in my Sunday post. Do you have some type of fetish for repetition? If so, you’re obviously a perverted slut with no morals or a soul.

Luigi Novi: That I believe female circumcision is wrong is traced back to these core beliefs. It is not, and cannot be traced back to anything that is free from the influence of bias, emotion, or personal experience, or which exists in nature, like scientific or mathematical principles, and it doesn’t need to be in order to be valid.

Peter: It needs to be if you want it to be any more valid than every other moral code in the universe.
Luigi Novi: Bingo. And therein lies the cognitive psychological flaw in your thinking. You feel you HAVE to associate your beliefs with some property that connotes "right-ness" Unfortunately for you, Peter, moral systems do not exist in nature as mathematics and science, and saying they do until you’re blue in the face won’t make it so. The vocabulary of the words "objective" and "subjective" simply don’t support your position.

Peter: Touching and kissing are not simulated sex. Anal sex is simply masturbation.
Luigi Novi: Every expert in sexuality and human behavior would disagree with you.

Peter: You don't have to [get married and have kids], but you are being selfish if you choose not to.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? Explain to me the "logic" in this. I don’t have any obligation to others except to live by the rule of law. People don’t have responsibilities to their "race."

Peter: [Homosexuality] is less natural because it is a rather perverse preference of a tiny proportion of the population.
Luigi Novi: One has nothing to do with the other. And again, the word "perverse" is a self-serving value judgement, not the conclusion of anyone working in the field of human behavior or sexuality.

Peter: It is unnatural because the anus was not designed for sex, and the body was designed to be self-replicating. You may as well say there is no scientific evidence that necrophilia or paedophilia is unnatural.
Luigi Novi: There isn’t. Strictly speaking, ALL behavior is "natural," because it all originates in the brain. But whether it is natural and whether it is right is too different things. I and others have explained on other boards why pedophilia is wrong.

But if it’s unnatural, why has homosexual behavior been observed in other animals in the animal kingdom?

Luigi Novi: But when it comes to all the science derived from studies of whether homosexuality is natural or not, THAT you deny. Why?

Peter: I have not seen any study into that.
Luigi Novi: It is easy to "have not seen any study" if you don’t look for it when making your arguments, Peter. Again, you state that I don’t "think things though," when you have deliberately chosen to not only seek out information on this point, but to IGNORE me when I tell you that it exists out there. Okay. I’ll do some of your homework for you:

Is Homosexuality Biologically Caused?
Homosexuality May Not Be a Choice.

Some recent scientific discoveries have set off renewed controversy over the question of whether homosexuality is biologically caused. This is a complicated issue, and would take at least a book or two to deal with adequately, but we will summarize some of the recent research and then consider its implications.

Evidence concerning possible biological origins of homosexuality comes from three directions: Neuroanatomical research (comparing the brains of deceased homosexuals and heterosexuals); endocrinological studies (the study of hormones); and genetic research, including studies of twins, family pedigrees, studies of DNA markers in humans, and (believe it or not), studies of an unusual variety of the common fruit fly.

As a neat revenge for the decades of disparaging remarks about "fruits," investigators in the genetics of sexual orientation have focused on the mating habits of a special type of fruit fly (Drosophilia melanogaster) dubbed "the fruitless fly." This type of male fruit fly has the characteristic of being attracted to—and attracted by—other male fruit flies. These "gay" flies willingly mate with members of their own sex and do not reproduce. What makes this phenomenon particularly interesting to researchers is that the fruitless flies were found to have a very special genetic variation—only those flies with the variation behave "homosexually." Although no direct conclusions can be drawn from this research to the case of human sexual orientation, the sex life of the fruitless fly suggests at least the possibility that genetics may contribute to sexual orientation in at least some species.

Investigators were encouraged by the fruitless fly findings, by pedigree ("family tree") studies which showed without question that homosexuality indeed does run in families, and by numerous twin and adoption studies which showed that the closer the genetic similarity between siblings, the higher the likelihood that they would match up (both be gay) if one was gay. For example, in one typical study, identical male twins were twice as likely as fraternal twins to match up for homosexuality, and five times more likely to match up than adopted brothers.

The next step was to turn attention to human DNA. Preliminary studies isolated DNA markers on a region of the X-chromosome in a majority (but not all) of a sample of gay men. These genetic markers were not present in the DNA of the sample of straight men. Taken together, all of the above findings suggest a very high probability that at least some types of homosexuality in men are genetically influenced.

Another avenue of inquiry has been to compare brain structures of gay men, straight men, and straight women. In the well-publicized study of the Siman LeVay, differences were found in certain brain structures between gay men and straight men. Interestingly, the gay men’s structures were almost identical to those of the straight women. Thus, there may be a structural brain difference between those individuals—male or female—who are sexually oriented toward desiring men and those who are oriented toward desiring women. However, it is unclear whether these differences in brain structure are a (partial) cause or (partial) consequence of the differences in sexual orientation. It also should be remembered that LeVay’s work is only preliminary and needs to be related with the same results before his findings are considered truly valid.

Is homosexuality "biologically caused"? This is a question fraught with political implications. Many in the gay community welcome the notion of biological causation because they believe that if gayness were thought to have a biological base, it would imply that gays "can’t help" being the way they are and thus that they should not be "punished"—by courts, laws, or society in general—for being gay. Others in the gay community rail against biological notions, fearing that a Nazi-type campaign to genetically engineer gays out of the human race might be a result of a wide-spread acceptance of such notions.

Many scientists, however—gay and straight—consider both of these positions misguided. To clarify this, let’s first tackle our central question: Is homosexuality biologically caused? The answer is a resounding, unequivocal "Yes!" But then, all behavior is biologically caused! All behavior that originates in the brain is surely biological. Differences in behavior originate in differences in the brains. These differences can occur as a result of genetic inheritance, hormonal experience during pregnancy or childhood, environmental experiences, and any combination of these factors.

The confusion starts because people somehow have drawn the false conclusion that if differences originate in genetics or hormones they are somehow more immutable—that is, the person has less control over them and "can’t help himself (or herself)." From a scientific perspective, this is simply false. The underlying issue in this debate is thus not "biological vs. nonbiological," but "sexual preference (a choice) vs. sexual orientation (a fact):--and it is now largely accepted among sexual scientists that one’s sexual orientation—does not affect its immutability or lack of immutability.

In any case, whether it is considered innate, immutable, environmental, or changeable, this factor alone is unlikely to have a very large impact on public attitudes. Consider sex offending, another sexual issue about which passions run high. Do we have a more tolerant attitude toward sex offenders who apparently "can’t help themselves"? Who continue to offend, regardless of arrests and incarcerations? Are such people treated more leniently than those who only offend once or twice and then stop? If anything, the opposite is true. Social disapproval of homosexuality is probably not very strongly linked to whether or not it’s considered to be innate or immutable.

Thus, the real question is whether or not homosexuality harms anyone. If it harms no one, it should be tolerated regardless of its origin. As two important researchers in the field recently concluded, "…Regardless of what causes homosexuals to be homosexuals and regardless of whether they are born, choose to be, can be made not to be, or can or cannot control their behavior as homosexuals, homosexual conduct ought not to be condemned morally or proscribed legally" (Greenberg & Bailey, 1993, p. 251.)

REFERENCES:
Bailey, J.M. & Pillard, R.C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

Greenberg, A.S. & Bailey, J.M. (1993). Do biological explanations of homosexuality have moral, legal, or policy implications? The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 245-251.

LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual men and homosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037.

Pattatucci, A.M. L & Hamer, D.H. (1995). The genetics of sexual orientation: From fruit flies to humans. In P.R. Abramson, & S.D. Pinkerton (Eds.) Sexual nature, sexual culture. Chicago University of Chicago Press.

I can research this point and cite material on the subject. You, on the other hand, do not, then say you "haven’t seen" any study on the matter, and have the nerve to say that I don’t "think things through," and that you proceed from "pure logic." What utter bunk, Peter.

Peter: It is an absurd concept to even consider studying it.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you have the nerve to say we are close-minded. Science (and scientists) cover the entire spectrum that is the wealth of human knowledge. Human behavior, including sexuality, is part of this. Whatever a large number of people are curious about is a legitimate topic of study. You want to abstain from an entire area of human behavior, and you say we are the ones who are close-minded. Absolutely incredible.

Josh G: Evolution, like all science, is objective.
Luigi Novi: When done properly, that is. A lot of science is bad. (The amount of iron in spinach, Fleischman and Pon’s room temperature cold fusion, the danger of breast implants, the effects of high power lines, perpetual motion machines, Joe Neuman's free energy motor, etc.)

Peter: You have it backwards. Liberals have no higher authority than themselves to answer to, so any motivating moral code is based entirely on what they want and enjoy doing.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. Liberals are no less moral than any other group, and do not behave strictly according to instinct or pleasure. You simply have a caricaturized view of who and what liberals are. Probably the silliest idea of yours about them is that they all think, feel and believe the EXACT same thing on ALL subjects. Liberals are as diverse a group in their backgrounds, beliefs, and sociopolitical leanings as any other.

Sophie Hawksworth: The nerves there are designed for sexual pleasure.

Peter: Wait a minute. Designed by whom? If by God, then why? If by natural selection, then what benefit does anal sex bring to the species? }
Luigi Novi: Evolution is filled with dead ends and even poor designs. Male nipples, appendices, panda thumbs, etc. are all examples of this.

Peter: I also tend to argue from pure logic
Luigi Novi: Don’t kid yourself, Peter. You have repeatedly made sweeping, blanket statements at wide swaths of people you don’t know, and have never bothered to meet or talk to, based on twisted stereotypes and caricaturized images you’ve conjured of them, including pacifists, the Japanese, gays, flag-burners, liberals, Wiccans, non-English speaking people, etc. There is nothing "logical" about any of this. You simply bestow that label upon your statements as a self-serving value judgement.

Peter: Again, this is probably a short coming on a forum like this, where it is easy to misinterpret and misrepresent, and where logic counts for little.
Luigi Novi: On what planet is calling someone a retard logical?

Peter: Webber, but this is the first time I have heard anyone try to win an argument by pointing out "Hey my sister is an exhibitionist, sexually deviant slut".}
Luigi Novi: First, I don’t know how it’s treated in Britain, but the phrase "making out" means kissing, not sex. Second, the word "slut" is usually used to indicate promiscuity, which has nothing to do either with homosexuality, or public display. Third, how is calling someone a slut a matter of "pure logic"?

Master of Clarification: No legitimate scientist would ever claim we KNOW anything. We may have sufficent evidence to believe or disbelieve the postulate in question, but we can never truely KNOW anything. All results are ultimately based on readings from potentially inaccurate machines or observations from potentially biased, and nortiously unreliable, human witnesses.
Luigi Novi: So we don’t know that viruses exist? We don’t know that the Earth is round? We don’t know how to predict the movement of planets and stars? We don’t know that radio waves exist? It is true that all scientific knowledge is open to reevaluation and adjustment. You are simply exaggerating this point.

Master of Clarification: The only discipline which can even approach the rigor you suggest is Mathematics, and only because it is an artificial construct with clearly defined rules.
Luigi Novi: Mathematics, while defined distinctly by science, exists in nature. It is not artificial. The proper names therein are artificial, like the Pythagorean Theorem, but the principles they describe are natural.

Luigi Novi: When done properly, that is. A lot of science is bad. (The amount of iron in spinach, Fleischman and Pon’s room temperature cold fusion, the danger of breast implants, the effects of high power lines, perpetual motion machines, Joe Neuman's free energy motor, etc.)

True, I should say that integral to the scientific process are standards of peer review and repeat experimentation that ensure that "bad science" is confined to the trash heap.

Except, that is, where the media is involved (aspartame "disease," environmental illness, etc.).

William, you were close in the spelling; it's noblesse oblige.

Luigi, all of your message can basically be summed up as "morality is subjective, but it is also absolute". I ask you, if morality is absolute then how can it possibly be subjective? The only possibility is that people who believe anything different from the truth (in your case that female circumcision is wrong and so on) are wrong, in which case morality is objective.

Basically, morality can absolute, in which case it is objective and has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks. This is the common sense view confirmed by all normal philosophers. It states, for example, that murder is wrong even if nearly everyone on the planet votes for it.

Or it can be relative, in which case every person holds a moral code and none is any better than another. This is where morality is subjective to the individual. It is an intellectual view that makes no logical sense.

You cannot have it both ways, by saying morality is absolute, so you are right and everyone else is wrong, but it is also subjective.

As for the idea that morality is not a fact of nature, what else can it be? Because people debate it it automatically becomes a matter of opinion? I don't think so. Logically there HAS to be a best way to live, that involves the greatest kindness and consideration for others and for God. Just as 2+2=4, murder is wrong and charity is good.

Peter.

By the way, if morality is subjective then words like "moral" and "immoral" are so arbitrary as to be meaningless. You can say you are behaving morally but it has no meaning to someone else with their own moral code. Similarly, you cannot accuse anyone else of immorality, because according to their subjective moral code they are behaving perfectly morally.

Morality needs an objective, absolute measure to make any sense.

Peter.

Peter: Luigi, all of your message can basically be summed up as "morality is subjective, but it is also absolute". I ask you, if morality is absolute then how can it possibly be subjective?
Luigi Novi: I never said it was absolute. That is your word, not mine.

Peter: The only possibility is that people who believe anything different from the truth
Luigi Novi: What truth? Are you talking about factual truth? Spiritual truth? Personal truth?

Peter: Basically, morality can absolute, in which case it is objective and has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks.
Luigi Novi: A person may follow a moral or religious code that they believe is absolute. That does not mean it is absolute for other people, nor does the fact that that person feels it is absolute make it "objective." Again, you do not understand what the very word "objective" means.

Peter: This is the common sense view confirmed by all normal philosophers.
Luigi Novi: Again, your use of the word "normal" is arbitrary, a word you pin to the beliefs and opinions that YOU subscribe to. It’s one thing to speak of schools of thought in terms or those who first pioneered them, like "Aristotlean Philosophy", or "The Ayn Rand School of Thought," or even after groups or concepts, like "Gnostic Philosophy." There is no school of philosophy known as "The Normal School," or "Normalist Thinking." The word "normal" does not mean "everything that Peter subscribes to," which is what you mean when you use the word.

Peter: It states, for example, that murder is wrong even if nearly everyone on the planet votes for it.
Luigi Novi: I would agree with that, obviously. But what happens when someone defines murder differently from the person next to them? What if someone defines the death penalty as murder and another does not?

Peter: Or it can be relative, in which case every person holds a moral code and none is any better than another.
Luigi Novi: People DO hold different moral codes and yet, I STILL say that one wherein people agree to be civil and not hurt one another or live in anarchy IS better than one wherein they don’t. I recognize those standards (not harming others, rule of law, etc.) as the ones upon which to build a healthy, strong society, not whether I can convince myself that it is "objective" or not.

Peter: This is where morality is subjective to the individual. It is an intellectual view that makes no logical sense.
Luigi Novi: If you believe that the word "subjective" means "wrong", and that "objective" means "right", then it wouldn’t make logical sense. The thing is, that isn’t what those words mean. You simply connote the one to mean the other.

Peter: You cannot have it both ways, by saying morality is absolute, so you are right and everyone else is wrong, but it is also subjective.
Luigi Novi: Funny thing, Peter. I never said it was absolute.

Peter: As for the idea that morality is not a fact of nature, what else can it be? Because people debate it it automatically becomes a matter of opinion?
Luigi Novi: No, because it cannot be proven empirically, and because it doesn’t fall under the definition of "fact." That is why it is not a "fact." And frankly, I don’t see why your entire sense of moral identity requires it to be so.

Peter: Logically there HAS to be a best way to live, that involves the greatest kindness and consideration for others and for God. Just as 2+2=4, murder is wrong
Luigi Novi: Mathematical equations can be proven as a matter of empirical FACT. Opinions on right and wrong CANNOT. Again, you think that if you simply ASSOCIATE disparate concepts by mere fiat, that the connection between the two will somehow be true. It doesn’t work that way.

To use your example, I can say "Just as 2+2=4, blue curtains for the bathroom are right." But no matter how many times I say it, I am make a false equation between something that can be proven, and something which must be adhered to as a matter of BELIEF.

The word "fact" has a specific meaning when used by most people, and it doesn’t have anything to do with morality. Religious concepts are based on faith. What’s wrong with that? Are you saying you need empirical PROOF for your religious or spiritual views? Isn’t faith entirely about believing in something when you don’t have any? You are simply using the word "fact", much in the way that you use the word "objective," more because of what it CONNOTES by ASSOCIATION, rather than because you acknowledge the definition of the word and are using it properly.

Peter: …and charity is good.
Luigi Novi: Then why are you so uncharitable to others on this site and others? Why do you refer to someone’s poetry on Voices of Unreason as "worthless" just because the poet didn’t use proper punctuation or grammar, when ADVISING her to do so could’ve gotten your point across in a more CHARITABLE and polite manner?

Peter: By the way, if morality is subjective then words like "moral" and "immoral" are so arbitrary as to be meaningless.
Luigi Novi: Morality is determined by whim, impulse or chance? Well, that’s your opinion, not mine. I’ve already explained to you the criteria on which I base my morality. None of it is determined by "whim", "impluse" or "chance", which is what the word "arbitrary" means.

Peter: You can say you are behaving morally but it has no meaning to someone else with their own moral code.
Luigi Novi: So what? Do you honestly think that if the two of us went countries where they continue to practice slavery, honor killing, female circumcision, etc. and we both told people it was wrong, that they would believe you more than me, simply because you’re under the impression that your moral beliefs are "factual" or "objective"?

Peter: Similarly, you cannot accuse anyone else of immorality, because according to their subjective moral code they are behaving perfectly morally.
Luigi Novi: Rubbish. I say that using tanks to steamroll student demonstrators in a public square is wrong. I say that keeping people as slaves is wrong. I say that kidnapping children to use as jockeys is wrong. Whether those people believe their code is correct is of no import to me. It is wrong to harm or imprison others without just cause or due process under a just law, and people in civilized societies should do everything to stop it, period. I don’t need to be under the mistaken belief that this belief is in the back of a math textbook for it to be valid.

Peter: Morality needs an objective, absolute measure to make any sense.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry you feel that way. If credo consolans is the mental lynchpin which keeps your entire world from crumbling, hey, to each his own.

Uh huh. You are about as convincing as an advocate of modern art. There is nothing "subjective" about public lesbian sex. It is disgusting.

What about public straight sex?

You may as well say there is no scientific evidence that necrophilia or paedophilia is unnatural.

Peter. Where in the bible does it say that paedophilia is wrong? (it is even widely believed that Mary was about 14 and Joseph was several years older when Jesus was born) I say this not to argue that paedophilia is right, but to point out that this bit of morality was created by humans without help from god.

Not a problem, Will.

Luigi, if you believe morality is not relative, which you make clear with statements like:

"I say that using tanks to steamroll student demonstrators in a public square is wrong. I say that keeping people as slaves is wrong. I say that kidnapping children to use as jockeys is wrong. Whether those people believe their code is correct is of no import to me. It is wrong to harm or imprison others without just cause or due process under a just law, and people in civilized societies should do everything to stop it, period."

...then it has to be absolute. There is no way it cannot be one or the other of those things. If it is relative then it can be subjective, but if it is absolute, then it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else on the planets thinks: it is a matter of objective facts. If you cannot grasp the simple logic of this then there is something wrong.

For example, to take your Tiananmen Square analogy, would it make any difference if you believed the massacre at Tiananmen Square was moral? Would that make it so? Of course not. It would remain immoral no matter what anyone thought. This is moral absolutism, which is different from moral subjectivism or relativism, which holds that there is no objective standard of morality: it is simply a matter of different opinions.

BTW, your blue curtains analogy is completely bogus as it is impossible to argue logically in favour of one colour over another in a way that will apply to everyone. This does not apply to maths or morality.

Peter.

Luigi, I suggest you read the introduction to The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom to understand where you slip up.

Bloom basically shows how in the name of "tolerance", the education system of the US is devoted completely to promoting the idea that the truth is relative. It isn't that this view should be suppressed, but it is the way in which the education system frames the mind in such a way as to make it impossible for people to understand any other idea that is the problem.

This is shown very much by the way in which you not only disagree with the idea that morality is a matter of fact, but you fail to understand how it possibly could be. Similarly, religion, which was always considered a matter of fact, was turned into a matter of opinion by ideas of religious "tolerance". Clearly you are very confused about what you believe, and I suspect you do accept that morality is absolute and objective. You just have been trained not to consider this possibility. Read the introduction and you'll get much insight.

Peter.

Peter, you seem not to understand the difference between relativism and subjectivity.

A subjective idea is one informed by individual feeling or assumptions.

Cultural/Moral Relativism holds that, since people have different cultures and moral codes, there are no standards by which to judge aspects of culture/morals. Consequently, we cannot criticize other cultures, nor even our our own culture, for all cultural/moral beliefs are equally valid and thus should be immune to criticism (notice the inherent problem in that: any sort of moral or cultural "progress" is impossible).

Now, while Luigi's (and anyone's) conception of morality is subjective in nature (in that it is informed by feeling, assumptions, etc), this does not mean that standards do not exist to compare different moral codes. Luigi believes that his conception of morality will provide for the realization of individual happiness, etc (to simplify it). Other moralities can thus be judged by the objective standard of whether they provide for the kind of society Luigi conceives of. This is not relativism.

This is shown very much by the way in which you not only disagree with the idea that morality is a matter of fact, but you fail to understand how it possibly couldbe. Similarly, religion, which was always considered a matter of fact, was turned into a matter of opinion by ideas of religious "tolerance".

Here we go again, misusing "fact" in ways that suit your purposes. Religion is a matter of faith, get it? Not all of us possess faith in a higher being. Some do, some don't. It's a matter of opinion. That is the TRUTH of the matter. It's a FACT.

And what do you have against religious "tolerance?"

Clearly you are very confused about what you believe, and I suspect you do accept that morality is absolute and objective. You just have been trained not to consider this possibility.

What made you an expert on the workings of Luigi's mind?

My, what wonderful people you all are. I'm sorry, but you, Luigi, desperately need to stop arguing with Peter and save your spare time for something constructive. Peter will never listen to you, and it's quite likely that he'll never even seriously read your posts. Peter, if you hate these boards, then don't come here. There's some logic for you. Brian Webber: Threatening bodily injury to people while swearing copiously doesn't exactly jibe with the moral high position you seem so desperate to claim.

Everyone else: Remember when this used to be about the UN? Whatever happened to that?

So everyones immitating the UN,

Anon: *ROTFLMAO*

Peter the miscommunication we seem to be having here seems to stem not so much from a difference of opinion on certain aspects of morality (I’m assuming, for example, that we both believe that slavery, honor killing, female circumcision, violent govt. suppression of student demonstration, etc. are wrong), but from your insistence on making a false equation between "objective and subjective" and "right and wrong," or between the word "objective" with the words "fact" and "right."

"Objective" is just a fancy way of saying "unbiased." If you have three people from different cultures coming together in a debate. On one hand is a U.S. slaveowner from the 1800s who says slavery of blacks by whites is okay. On the other is a tribesman from a tribe in Africa or the Amazon who says that slavery as it’s known in the U.S. is wrong, but it’s okay to mutilate a female infant for fear that she can’t be married. On the third hand is YOU, who states that BOTH are wrong. In this case, you and I are in agreement. Now here’s the question? Are all three people BIASED?

Yes.

Are you and I biased for the position we have on the subject? Yes. BUT WAIT--Does that mean we are wrong? No. Whether someone is biased or unbiased is entirely separate from whether they are right or wrong.

But then, you might argue, "How then, do you and I know we are right, Luigi?" Simple. Because we hold a certain standard, and we follow our hearts in this matter. This is precisely why morality and spirituality is based on FAITH, and why they’re not called a "science." They aren’t empirical matters. They have nothing to do with fact or proof, and while it might be of benefit to me to see if my local library has The Closing of the American Mind, it might be of benefit to you to find a DICTIONARY if you still believe such matters fall under the definition of "objective."

I say this because these are the conclusions I arrive at when doing my very best to remain logical, to keep in mind the true definitions of words from both dictionaries and usage patterns, to weigh this reasoning against the reasoning of you and others, etc. NOT because I have been "trained" to think this, which sounds like a thinly veiled euphemistic way for you to once again say that I am a "clone" or that I am "brainwashed" (though I could be wrong there.) I have not been "trained" to think what I do any more than YOU have, nor am I any more "confused" about what I believe than you are. I simply recognize certain flaws in critical thinking that you don’t. To anyone who doesn’t know how to properly distinguish between things that may seem superficially similar, but which differ in substantial ways, pointing out the difference they refuse to see will often make it seem to them that the other person is "confused," or "trained."

These thoughts and conclusions are my OWN, period. The manner in which morality is perceived is filtered largely through one’s own biases. Therefore, it is subjective.

If you think that knowing the difference between the words "objective" and "right" makes me confused (as well as some others on this board), believe what you wish. Credo consolans can be a comfortable cloak, I suppose.

Patterson, what planet are you on? How am I not listening to people?

Josh, if you don't understand something, do not comment. Do not choose to insult them anyway and assume to work out for yourself whatever they said.

If something calls itself a religion it automatically fits into a category of meaningless subjectivity with no claims to any knowledge about the world? That you think this is proved by your insane claim that "even if evolution were proved beyond any doubt in 20 years time, creationism would be still be true for creationists"!!

Scientists and religious figures offer their own explanations about the beginnings of the world. Scientists may offer more in the way of scientific evidence than say a Creationist, but the only sensible way to proceed is to treat that explanation like a scientific theory, and if/when proved untrue dismiss it. You are talking about this wonderland of subjectivity where the world literally was created by all sorts of different ways simultaneously depending on whom you ask. The beginnings of the world (like any scientific or religious claims) are all objective claims to truth as they are nothing to do with beliefs ie. a Christian Creationist and an evolutionist would maintain their explanation is true no matter how many or few people believed they were true. The only time an explanation can be considered subjective is if it matters what a person or some people think. With morality and the beginnings of the earth and so on, that does not come into it. Something is immoral irrespective of what you or I think of it and the world started in a certain way irrespective of what you or I believe.

Now here’s the question? Are all three people BIASED?

Yes.

Your mistake is in assuming that every person works out their moral code based on what they personally seemed logical. If so then everyone would be biased, and their "morality" would be so arbitrary as to be meaningless, because it is completely subjective.

But this athiest concept of morality is not the only possible one. The basis for an objective moral code is from God, not man. If there were no God, then morality would have no real meaning. You could have no basis for defending one law on something like murder or theft over another, because everyone would have their own subjective opinion on the matter and there would be no basis for choosing to impose any one view.

Peter.

Peter: The only time an explanation can be considered subjective is if it matters what a person or some people think.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not what the word means, Peter. You’re confusing the phrase "matter of opinion" with "subjective."

Peter: Your mistake is in assuming that every person works out their moral code based on what they personally seemed logical.
Luigi Novi: They do. (Although some may not call it logic. Some will freely admit that their conclusions are based on faith or instinct or whatever.)

Peter: If so then everyone would be biased
Luigi Novi: They are.

Peter: and their "morality" would be so arbitrary as to be meaningless, because it is completely subjective.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Arbitrary and Subjective do not mean the same thing.

Peter: But this athiest concept of morality…
Luigi Novi: It is not atheist. It isn’t even a concept of morality. It is an observation of the cognitive processes at work when people form such systems.

Peter: The basis for an objective moral code is from God, not man.
Luigi Novi: For the umpteenth time, Peter, the definition of the word "objective" has NOTHING TO DO with God, or with the concept of "being right." LOOK UP THE WORD.

Peter: If there were no God, then morality would have no real meaning.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. A society that has never known God can certainly form a civil way of life.

Peter: You could have no basis for defending one law on something like murder or theft over another, because everyone would have their own subjective opinion on the matter and there would be no basis for choosing to impose any one view.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. We have standards of behavior based on rule of law that I mentioned above, regardless of whether someone has a different opinion on the matter. The murderer of Dr. Barnett Slepian, who performed abortions, felt he was right to assassinate him, and used the Bible as his defense. It was rejected as a defense. The fact that he had an opinion incompatible with the law forbidding murder didn’t count for anything. He went to jail.

It seems you change sides halfway through every post you make. You'll have to decide whether morality is relative or absolute and then we can continue. It cannot be both and it cannot be neither.

Of course you can impose laws without any higher authority, but on what basis do you defend them? Surely the more violent and strong, who are willing to impose their ideas about theft and killing on everyone else, will have free reign easily. Please explain how you can justify imposing moral views on a people without reference to a higher moral authority.

Peter.

Josh, if you don't understand something, do not comment. Do not choose to insult them anyway and assume to work out for yourself whatever they said.

I'm a bit sick of your telling my that I'm incapable of understanding your sophisticated arguments. Maybe if you knew what the terms meant that you are using, you'd understand me (and Luigi) better.

If something calls itself a religion it automatically fits into a category of meaningless subjectivity with no claims to any knowledge about the world?

When have I said that subjectivity is MEANINGLESS?

Look up the WORD!

That you think this is proved by your insane claim that "even if evolution were proved beyond any doubt in 20 years time, creationism would be still be true for creationists"!!

Nonsense. I have made no "insane" claims, and you seem to misunderstand the difference between PERSONAL truth (faith in God) vs. OBJECTIVE truth (Living organisms are made up of cells).

Scientists and religious figures offer their own explanations about the beginnings of the world. Scientists may offer more in the way of scientific evidence than say a Creationist, but the only sensible way to proceed is to treat that explanation like a scientific theory, and if/when proved untrue dismiss it.

Wrong. Creationism is NOT a scientific theory by ANY stretch of the imagination. It REQUIRES a FAITH in God in order for it to be "personally true." FAITH in God is a SUBJECTIVE opinion, therefore, Creationism is entirely subjective in nature.

You are talking about this wonderland of subjectivity where the world literally was created by all sorts of different ways simultaneously depending on whom you ask.

No, but people have different beliefs as to how the Universe was created. OBVIOUSLY they can't all be right.

The beginnings of the world (like any scientific or religious claims) are all objective claims to truth as they are nothing to do with beliefs ie. a Christian Creationist and an evolutionist would maintain their explanation is true no matter how many or few people believed they were true.

Wrong, I've said SEVERAL times before that Creationism, as a BELIEF informed by religious faith, is not objective. It is SUBJECTIVE. Get it?

The only time an explanation can be considered subjective is if it matters what a person or some people think.

Refer to Luigi's definitions.

With morality and the beginnings of the earth and so on, that does not come into it. Something is immoral irrespective of what you or I think of it and the world started in a certain way irrespective of what you or I believe.

Fine, there is some sort of absolute morality and the Universe could only have been created in one particular way. Do you know, for sure, what they are? Will people disagree with you? Are your beliefs informed by religion, culture, etc.?

Even if there is an absolute morality, I see no reason why you should possess any greater knowledge of it than anyone else here.

Of course you can impose laws without any higher authority, but on what basis do you defend them?

You defend them on their own merits.

Surely the more violent and strong, who are willing to impose their ideas about theft and killing on everyone else, will have free reign easily.

Are those sorts of "morals" conducive to the well being of individuals and broader society? Hardly.

Please explain how you can justify imposing moral views on a people without reference to a higher moral authority.

Maybe because those moral views benefit the welfare of individuals? Would life be very good if murder and theft were condoned? I don't think so.

As I said, any moral code must be judged on its own merits, not on whether it references a higher moral authority (which may not refer to a supreme being anyway).

I'm a bit sick of your telling my that I'm incapable of understanding your sophisticated arguments. Maybe if you knew what the terms meant that you are using, you'd understand me (and Luigi) better.

I didn't say it was sophistication that made it incomprehensible to you. I think it is most likely that you have been trained to think it impossible for certain things to be anything more than a matter of opinion. Your "creationism could be true to creationists even when it is proved wrong" quote strongly suggests this. It is certainly clear though that if you understood what I am saying (or what I am trying to say) you would not be responding in the way you are. I have no interest in arguing about how your interpretation of what I believe differs from what I really believe.

Peter.

Patterson, what planet are you on? How am I not listening to people?

Well, you didn't listen to me when I told you and everyone else to knock it off in my last post.

And people wonder why I don't come to Nitcentral anymore.

Right.

[begin sarcasm]
I've been "trained" by my post-modern upbringing to regard all things as a matter opinion. Nothing can be known, so knowing the Truth is impossible.
[/end sarcasm]

Never have I said that creationists were right, or that they're beliefs are valid. They are not, at least not as it applies to any objective standard of science.

If you still think I've failed to understand what you're saying, please bear with me and reiterate it in point form.

Here's a question for you all the same:

What makes a God-based moral code objective?

And people wonder why I don't come to Nitcentral anymore.

I'm sure the high quality of Enterprise has something to do with it...

"Evolution, as a function of science, is, by contrast, an OBJECTIVE view based on reason"

The funniest statement I have ever read. There has been tons of evidence to show evolution is false.

Such as?

Peter.

The funniest statement I have ever read.

At least I don't write in fragments...

There has been tons of evidence to show evolution is false.

Would you care to share some of this "evidence?"

What do you know of modern evolutionary theory? (De-bunking Darwin doesn't count; Darwin is to biology as Newton is to physics.)

That person's probably talking about those "Christian Scientists" who take the bible as truth and apply a 9th grade understanding of science to try to explain it "scientifically". They throw out any info that they can't make jive with the bible. The problem with that is the scientific theory holds that everything is suspect until proven otherwise. They take something that is unproven (the bible) as fact and build everything else around it.

A Grade 9 understanding of science? You give them too much credit.

Since there's no way to logically prove the existence of God, any "theory" that depends on God's existence as a premise must engage in circular logic or invalid arguments.

e.g.

There is inherent order to the Universe.
Inherent order implies a designer.

- This is in an invalid argument.

The Universe has a designer.
God is that designer.
Therefore, God created the Universe.

- This is circular logic; the second premise is the same as the conclusion.

Peter: It seems you change sides halfway through every post you make. You'll have to decide whether morality is relative or absolute and then we can continue. It cannot be both and it cannot be neither.
Luigi Novi: I have not changed anything. You simply don’t acknowledge what these words mean.

It is wrong to kill. Is this absolute? No, because it’s okay to kill in self-defense. It’s okay to kill a combatant in a just war. It’s okay to kill someone convicted of murder in a fair and just trial where the defendant got as vigorous a defense as anyone else. It’s okay to kill animals for food. It’s okay to euthanize pet that is terminally ill, in pain that cannot be alleviated, etc. That’s five exceptions to the "it’s wrong to kill" principle (three if we’re only talking about humans). Therefore, that principle is not absolute, since the word means to a total, unequivocal degree or quantity, without exception or argument.

Do I personally believe all moral systems are equally valid? As I’ve stated before, I do not. Therefore, morality is not relative. It is subjective, but if relativism carries with the connotation of validity (subjectivity does not), it is not relative.

But since you use the word to connote "right", and refuse to acknowledge the true definition of the word, you ignore this point.

Peter: Of course you can impose laws without any higher authority, but on what basis do you defend them? Surely the more violent and strong, who are willing to impose their ideas about theft and killing on everyone else, will have free reign easily. Please explain how you can justify imposing moral views on a people without reference to a higher moral authority.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what you mean by "higher moral authority," but if you mean God, Peter, I and others have already EXPLAINED to you the standards by which moral systems can exist in secular societies. I have explained it several times to you on this board.

Whether or not a given society uses God as a reference point in their moral system will not stop the violent and the strong from trying to overthrow them if they think they’re strong enough to do so. I’m sure many of the those slaughtered in Kosovo were religious. I’m sure many of the Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda might’ve been God-fearing people. I’m sure many of the people who were killed in Nanking, Hiroshima, Dresden, Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center and Jerusalem were religious. It had nothing to do with whether or not someone else killed them.

Anonymous: The funniest statement I have ever read. There has been tons of evidence to show evolution is false.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, you’re a walking exhibit all your own, Tongo.

The vagina was designed for intercourse.:: Peter

Well, ladies, I guess that means that from here on out, you'll have to have C-sections. The vagina is designed for intercourse, but apparently not birthing.

What this means Peter, is there are very few body parts that don't have more than one function. My mouth can either be used to speak or eat. My feet can be used to run, stand, walk or kick.

Dumped a message

Well, it's a shame to waste a fine rant on a limited audience, so... Edited from my blog site, earlier this week (Note: Yes, this also veers into religious territory, but the two are sort of intertwined anyway...):

...I’m referring of course, to Moral relativism. The belief that there is no right or wrong, (just do whatever feels good to you!), that there is no objective truth (that may be true for you but not for me), and that you shouldn’t ‘impose your beliefs’ on others by suggesting that they should and shouldn’t do something, because your morals may apply to you, but not necessarily to them.



This is folly, through and through. Without objective truth (that come from a source beyond us… more on that in a second) than chaos reigns, and the only law is Power.

“Why shouldn’t I murder you? I feel like it?”

“Stealing your car may be wrong to you, but don’t try to impose your morality on me.”

“What do you mean ‘It’s wrong to burn down the neighborhood.’ I thought we civilized, modern people were beyond such silly concepts as ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Now, hand me the Kerosene or I’ll bludgeon your brains in.”

Extreme examples? Of course. But perfectly sensible in a world without objective morality. If everyone determines their own right and wrong, then no one else can tell them that something is wrong, and laws break down. You have total anarchy, and the only way to ever enforce something is through brute strength… whoever has the power to make people do what they want gets people who do things their way (even if they don’t agree with him.) Everyone else is out for themselves.

So, without objective truth, something that applies to everybody, you get chaos, anarchy, and brutal dictatorships. Scarily enough, there are not just those who recognize this fact… there are those who embrace it! The philosopher Nietzsche, a prime inspiration to the Columbine killers, espoused his belief that this is how things OUGHT to be… the strongest rule the Earth, and the weakest are eliminated. One of the main reasons he hated Christians is because they protect and value the weak.



So, that’s a glimpse of where a society without and objective morals would be headed. Now, why do I say that it has to be from source beyond us? Well, from a Christian perspective, we’re flawed, and anything we came up with would still be flawed. And, from a human perspective, He who giveth can taketh away- a moral system created by humans would be subject to revision by humans… a system of truth that can be re-arranged on a whim is almost as useless as no truth whatsoever, because the truth wouldn’t remain objective.

However, a truth provided from beyond us (say, from God for example) is greater than all of us, and not subject to change, and it applies to all of us since it comes from a source greater than all of us.



***********



If it didn’t have such a frightening potential impact, I would enjoy the sheer silliness and logical vulnerability of Moral Relativism. An example I recently came up with: Calling a Moral Relativist an idiot is a win-win situation. If he’s right, and there is no truth, then your opinion is just as valid as his, and he can’t tell you that you’re wrong… and if you’re right, and there’s truth that he’s just ignoring, then he IS an idiot.

Either way, he can’t tell you you’re wrong, because ‘wrong’ implies a right.



An inspiration for this blog is Frank Peretti. He addressed these issues in several of his books. He made an excellent point: What right do moral relativists have to hold an opinion about anything? In the schools, they teach us that our moral system (whatever that may be) has certainly improved in the last few centuries… we’ve freed the slaves and given women the vote, and we’ve come along way from where we once were. But wait… if there’s no right or wrong, and everyone at the time agreed that slaves were property and women were second class citizens, then what made their moral stance ‘wrong?’

This is the trap, and it’s one you can nail ‘em in every time. As human beings, we simply can’t have no opinion on everything. And once we have an opinion, we have a judgment of right or wrong and a statement of truth in our heads. Here are some quotes that Peretti uses in his book to demonstrate the self-defeating nature of Moral Relativism:



“It’s wrong to impose your morals on others.”

Uh… pardon me, but when you tell me it’s wrong to do something, aren’t you imposing your morals on me?



“There are no absolutes.”

That in itself is an absolute statement. (Just like Revenge of the Sith’s “Only the Sith deal in absolutes!” Well, ONLY THE SITH sounds pretty absolute to me!)



“No one’s moral opinion is valid because we all speak from how we’ve been indoctrinated.”

Well, I guess that would apply to you as well, which means what you’ve just said isn’t valid either.



“Everyone should be able to believe what they want!”

Then why are you arguing with me?



“Life is meaningless!”

Would you consider that a meaningful statement?



“You can’t know anything for sure.”

You seem rather sure about that.



“Students, no view of reality is superior to any other.”

Then why are you grading our papers?



“You have no right to say truth is external! We all create our own reality!”

Then I’m YOUR fault…?



“Oh, here we go again, another right-wing fundamentalist making bold assertions of fact.”

Pardon me, but didn’t you just make a bold assertion of fact?



“There is no right; there is no wrong.”

Is that statement right or wrong?



“You can’t tell anybody they’re wrong.”

Why? Am I wrong in doing so?



You see, their argument falls apart at the core, because any statement they can make about moral relativism is a statement of truth. If you say it IS anything, that’s an absolute statement. If you say it ISN’T anything, that’s also an absolute statement. Even if you say it MIGHT BE something, it’s still an absolute statement, because you’re stating that it exists.

So, even if we can't agree yet on what exactly there is or where it came from yet, let's at least agree on something: There is objective truth out there, whether we like it or not.

And whos to say your god is the right god or the only god? Whos to say that the muslim's allah isnt the right one and the christian god is just a lie and a ghost and the evil one? What makes the "christian" god or morals the only right one?

Hey wow check out this cultist and the rest of his "christian" funddie whackos. Wonder how long before they pull a jim jones?

Christian group wants to 'redeem' US states By Harriet McLeod
Mon Oct 24,11:13 AM ET



CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - Cory Burnell wants to set up a Christian nation within the United States where abortion is illegal, gay marriage is banned, schools cannot teach evolution, children can pray to Jesus in public schools and the Ten Commandments are posted publicly.

ADVERTISEMENT




To that end, Burnell, 29, left the Republican Party, moved from California and founded Christian Exodus two years ago with the goal of redirecting the United States by "redeeming" one state at a time.

First up for redemption is South Carolina.

Burnell hopes to move 2,500 Christians into the northern part of the state by next year and to persuade tens of thousands to relocate by 2016. His goal is to fill the state legislature with "Christian constitutionalists."

The push comes at a time when Christian fundamentalism is a growing force in U.S. politics, displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings are spurring litigation and President George W. Bush is touting the evangelical Christian credentials of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Christian Exodus officially started in May 2004, reaching people mainly through the Internet. Since then, five families and two individuals have relocated to South Carolina, Burnell said.

The organization, which claims about 1,000 members, held its first conference October 15-16 to promote its agenda. About 50 people from as far away as Ohio and Oregon attended.

Burnell picked South Carolina partly for its Christian majority and conservative politics.

"Historically, Southerners do have a states' rights mentality," he said. "Christians in the North are experiencing the most liberalism, or you could say persecution."

Christian Exodus hopes to throw off what it considers unconstitutional burdens imposed by the federal government. Examples, Burnell said, are federal spending on public education and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the use of the courts "to teach that Heather has two mommies."

"We (want to) force Washington, D.C., to reform itself by not going along with it," he said.

The organization's Web site says if it does not meet its goal of change, it will work to secede from the United States.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union in 1860, and the first shots of the U.S. Civil War were fired from Charleston's Battery onto Fort Sumter.

The group's reception in South Carolina has been mixed.

Arthur Bryngelson, chairman of the Dorchester County Republican Party, spoke at a Christian Exodus' conference and said he would encourage Christian Exodus members to become Republicans.

"I consider myself to be a fundamental Christian," he said. "I'm with (Christian Exodus) all the way up to secession. ... I'm not in favor of going down to the Battery and firing on Fort Sumter again."

State Sen. Mike Fair, a Republican who described himself as "a narrow-minded, right-wing, fundamentalist fanatic," said he was suspicious of Christian Exodus.

"I had huge credibility problems with them," he said. "Their plank for this perceived buckle of the Bible Belt, they're so far off the mark. I don't think they're going to get much traction."

Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, would not comment except to say, "We have a great state with a great quality of life that's certainly open to anyone."

Columbia attorney Herbert E. Buhl III, who does legal work for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he received "a nasty little letter ... calling me a liar" from a Christian Exodus representative.

Buhl said the letter came after he had represented Wiccan Darla Wynne, who successfully sued the town of Great Falls to remove the name of Jesus Christ from pre-meeting prayers. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2004 with a federal judge that the town's prayers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government.

"This should be a nonissue," Buhl said. "It's separation of church and state. This is black-letter law."

Hey whatever happened to no cruel and unusual punishment. Wonder if they do an alex to the folks and make it so they can't listen to the ol mozart. Nosh on that.


Trial begins in lawsuit over Christian prison program
By WILLIAM PETROSKI
REGISTER STAFF WRITER


October 24, 2005


Iowa prison officials have permitted a religious group at the Newton Correctional Facility "to take over an entire unit and to turn it into an evangelical Christian church," a lawyer contended Monday.

Inmates can be accepted into the Newton prison rehabilitation program "only by being subjected to religious indoctrination," said Alex Luchenitser, representing American United for Separation of Church and State of Washington, D.C.

His group is suing Iowa prison officials and Virginia-based Prison Fellowship Ministries, contending the program, known as the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, unconstitutionally represents a merger of state and religion.

Luchenitser spoke during opening arguments in the trial, which began Monday before U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in Des Moines. Prison Fellowship Ministries has sponsored the Bible-based rehabilitation program at Newton since 1999 under a contract with the Iowa Department of Corrections. About 220 inmates participate in the program, which lasts 18 months.

Anthony Troy, a lawyer for Prison Ministries, predicted the court will conclude the program is constitutional after broadly looking at issues in the case. The program was created in response to a soaring state prison population at the time and was an effort to reduce the number of released convicts who return to prison, he said.

State officials are not permitted to advertise with a disclaimer that "Christian groups need not apply," Troy said.

The trial is expected to take about two and a half weeks. Pratt then plans to take the case under consideration and will issue a ruling at a later date. Both sides agree the outcome could have major implications on President Bush's nationwide push for so-called "faith-based" initiatives in government programs. Similar InnerChange rehabilitation programs are now offered in Texas, Kansas and Minnesota, and one is scheduled to open in Arkansas.

This I would not see as unconstitutional if the inmates agreed to do it on a volunteer level and were not being coerced to do so (much like inmates agreeing to work with chaplains).

Sidebar: don't cut-and-paste entire articles onto the boards, give us links and paste relevant sections. To do otherwise, especially without giving copyright information, could get Phil in trouble.

"Historically, Southerners do have a states' rights mentality"

And that is something that you are looking to encourage. Remember what happened last time.

"Historically, Southerners do have a states' rights mentality"

And that is something that you are looking to encourage. Remember what happened last time.

oops

Sorry don't know how to do links and sometimes yahoo stories vanish or ive tried to follow a link and the source has been gone. These news stories seemed important enough for me to wanna broadcast.

And the prison one is being paid for by state money. Having a single chaplain is one thing but giving an entire wing and making getting out of prison dependent on being converted or going through the christian program like that is just plain wrong.

I seem to recall that SCOTUS has already ruled that programs, even so-called voluntary programs, that require participation in a particular religious practice in order to be eligible for assistance and/or priveleges are unconstitutional in state-run institutions. I'll try to find the case and post the details.

Anon--
To post a link you type \url{address,text} or \newurl{address,text}.

So that if you type \newurl{http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/25026.html?1130300832#POST306235,Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity} it will look like this: Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity, and open a new window with this thread in it.

It is better to summarize the gist of an article from another site and quote only the most important paragraph or two, usually the ones with direct quotes from the primary parties.

Tom, how exactly do you post that text without it turning into the link?

Use two backslashes. The first backslash escapes the second one.

So typing "\\url{....}" yields the text "\url{...}".

Oh, and in my previous post, I obviously used 4 backslashes in the first example to display 2, and two backslashes in the second, to display one.

Are you thoroughly confused yet?

Actually, I had used four extra backslashes myself. Following the instructions in the Formatting guide, I not only escaped the initial backslash, but also the braces (both opening and closing) and the comma. But if only escaping the backslash works, too, then I guess that once the format of the command is "broken," the other reserved characters are treated as simple characters. That's nice to know, since it cuts down on the extra typing and makes it possible to copy and paste the escaped command as the example without having to go through and delete the extra backslashes.

Thanks, Scott.

"And whos to say your god is the right god or the only god? Whos to say that the muslim's allah isnt the right one and the christian god is just a lie and a ghost and the evil one? What makes the "christian" god or morals the only right one?"-anonscaredofamythperson

Um, I believe that's where the 'We may not agree on where it comes from' part of my post comes in. The argument was written from a Christian perspective, and I'd be happy to debate in another forum why I believe that the Christian God is the one and only true God, but I don't believe I ever said that in my arguments. Regardless of that point, that does not change the arguments on relativism itself.


"CHARLESTON, South Carolina (Reuters) - Cory Burnell wants to set up a Christian nation within the United States where abortion is illegal, gay marriage is banned, schools cannot teach evolution, children can pray to Jesus in public schools and the Ten Commandments are posted publicly."-Anonsheep


GASP! The horror! An EEEEvvvviiiillll place where babies cannot be murdered, marriage law is the same as the United States, religious freedom is not restricted by the government!
Okay, the whole 'separate nation' thing is a problem, I'll admit. Bad idea. And, while I believe (before we start arguing about it, let's keep in mind: separate board!) that Evolution is sham pseudoscience, I agree that banning it completely would be an intellectual dishonesty.
Beyond that, however, what is so terrible about respecting the life of unborn children? Or allowing children who believe in a God of the universe to talk to Him during school hours- in fact, what pompous idiots think they have the right to restrict this? The day children aren't allowed to pray by the government is the day this ceases to be America. (All of that aside, I'll assume you're refering to the schools actually LEADING the prayers) I don't understand the innate horror of this vision... even if I don't think the vision is a good idea in the first place.

Overall, I do think that the Christian Exodus is a silly concept- if law changes were dictated by population consistency, then I'm sure Utah would have become a 'separate Mormon nation' a long time ago. Sorry, Mr. Burnell, it's just not going to happen.

Or allowing children who believe in a God of the universe to talk to Him during school hours- in fact, what pompous idiots think they have the right to restrict this? The day children aren't allowed to pray by the government is the day this ceases to be America. (All of that aside, I'll assume you're refering to the schools actually LEADING the prayers) I don't understand the innate horror of this vision... even if I don't think the vision is a good idea in the first place.

First of all it is refering to the school leading the prayer in the first place. How'd you like to be a jew with kids in the school where the teacher leads them in a prayer to Jesus Christ? How about a muslim who fled the mid east to get away from religious fanatacism?

really the problem i would have with a "christian" nation is that there would be no freedoms, no rights, no priviledges other than what the church would decide. There would be censorship of all media as to thoughts and anythign the church didnt approve of would not be allowed. The society would be one of hatred intolerance and bigotry based on a book that was written by humans over 2000 years ago. It would be like the worst aspects of stalinist russia, nazi germany and the taliban all rolled into one. There would be no respect for an individual person. There would be a borg collective like brainwashing and orwellian big brother intrusion into every person's private lives. The only good thing would be it would gather all the christian taliban nutcases together so the rest of humanity could build a wall around them to protect freedom and goodness from their evil.

As moderator, I second Zarm's motion to keep things on the proper boards. I ask that any further extension of this thread that does not touch upon the subject of Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity be continued on the more appropriate boards.

Even if I were to accept that there is an objective moral truth based on the Christian God, a lot of people would not be convinced of its existence. So wouldn't you have the same problem as you would have if there was no objective standard?

In other words, you couldn't prove these objective standards to people or force them to believe it, so it would simply a matter of trying to get people to look at it your way. So how would the result be any different than the results of moral relativism?

Well, I would say:

A: Just because people don't believe it doesn't make it non-truth. AKA, if there is moral law set down by God and I choose to deny it's existance, that doesn't mean that the truth doesn't exist... it just means that I'm in denial about it.

and B: I never said that I intended to FORCE anyone to believe anything. Also, as both you and anon-etc. (presuming that was all one individual with a talent for multiple long names) seem to have missed, I did point out the fact that there are those who disagree on the SOURCE of that truth. I personally believe that it is the Christian God, and I gave my reasons above why He is the most reliable source for truth, but I understand that there are those who simply won't believe that. My main intention was to point out that whether or not we can agree on the source, the idea of moral relativism, or lack of truth, is a logical trap and an utterly self-defeating concept.

I think that there's more than a semantic difference between stating a lack of truth and disagreeing on the source/nature of truth. At least, in the latter debate, you're actually seeking the truth, and acknowledging that, should the truth be determined, it applies to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. In otherwords, there's a recognition of reality (yes, there is truth) and responsibility (yes, it applies to you whether you acknowledge it's existance or not.)
While the moral/philisophical scene can prbably still be bogged down in endless debates over what the truth *IS*, a step toward recognition and responsibility of truth as reality is a step forward from the 'head in the clouds, living in my own world, I can do whatever I want with no consequences' mentality that accompanies moral relativism.

But you can never really totally proove the existence of the absolute moral truth source (ie god) in a court of law or a science lab so you can never really proove the existence of an absolute moral truth. The closest that has come is the declaration of human rights by the UN.

And I believe anon*.* is the same person.

Who cares what the UN thinks... they're just another group of people- they're certainly don't dictate truth!

"But you can never really totally proove the existence of the absolute moral truth source (ie god) in a court of law or a science lab so you can never really proove the existence of an absolute moral truth."-R

Logically, however, it is incredibly easy to disprove moral relativism, even if you can't prove the existance of the source of absolute moral truth. If 'lack of truth' is easily disproveable by it's very nature, then doesn't that leave 'existance of truth' as the only viable alternative?

In any event, I see truth the same way I see marriage- government should acknowledge it's existance as a true and necessary part of reality, but they shouldn't assume they have any right or abillity to change it since it's larger than they are.

But what is truth? And who gets to decide what is and is not true? You? Your church? Or each and every person on this planet gets to decide what is and is not true for themselves and the averages of those truths are the truths we hold to be true.

Truth is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell horrible.-------
Truth is a book of bad poetry and even worse jokes.

But, anonlyingtruthseeker, that's just the point... if everyone decides their own 'truths,' then none of them ARE true... the only truth that can truly be true is one that applies universaly. That's why I made the case for the source being God, because it comes from a source beyond humanity.

But whether you agree with that or not, the fact is that each person deciding what is 'true for them' does not result in truth... maybe a series of feel-good platitudes (I'm sure it must be nice living in a world where everything is exactly as it should be and you can do no wrong because if there's any conflict between morality and whatever you want to do, you can just decide that your new 'truth' makes the forbidden acceptable), but nothing that resembles actual truth.

By the way, anon- once again, I never claimed that I or my church were qualified to determine truth... (assuming you're the same anon-etc. that's been in this conversation) you keep putting words in my mouth. My point is that any 'truth' determined by an individual for themself is not truth at all- it's also useless for society, because the basis of law and order are rules that apply universally, not individualy. Now, obviously law is different than truth, (though ideally the two would line up more often than not) but the general principle is the same: standards can't be individually negotiable, or they become useless.

Zarm but how says which version of God is correct?

I do, obviously!

No Zarm no one dictates truth they figure it out. And I care what the UN Human Rights declaration says because this is one earth and we all have to learn to live together on it.

And the UN human rights declaration recognizes the common things between the various cultures that people acknowledge as a good and basic truth of human rights. It is not dictating the truth as much as recognizing the common truths between different cultures.

But the christian god is an invention of humanity out of our ignorance and our inability to understand the universe around us. If there are any "universal" truths science will show them and they will not be the grand and mystical illusions you are harping on about from this alleged god. Each person has to determine what is true in their lives and will allow them to peacefully and effectively coexist with the people around them. What is true for you is not true for me and never will be. There is no source beyond humanity for nay truths. It is up to just us.

And marriage is just another invention of humanity and should be controlled and a part of civil law as all it is is a civil contract and is not bigger than humanity. Nothign is bigger than humanity when it is just an invention of humanity.

And while you may not have ever said you or your church where the ones to determine truth by continuing to refer to this fanciful god as the source of truth that brings religion into the picture and most churches would jump on a chance to dictate terms to people and control their lives by saying they are the sole deciders of truth. And religion is the purveyors of the feel good platitudes without ever sayign anythign useful.

Zarmie I am the one and the same throughout this entire conversation and this world. I am the begining and the ending of my life. I am the trinity of me, myself and I. I am my own best friend.

And you want a universal truth? Well if you can handle it here it is:

We are a bunch of semi-sentient evolved primates stuck on and poisoning a fragile rock in orbit around an average sized yellow star in the backwater of an average galaxy in an infinite universe.

You and I and the pope and anyone and everyone else on this planet are insignificant specks of protoplasm who think we can suss out the meaning of the universe and are so egotistical to think that we are the answer. That all the world and all the universe was created by some bloody git for just our pathetic use.

At the end of the race it don't matter what you believed or what you thought or what you did or what flag you pledged allegiance to because you don't get out of life alive. Bang zoom end of the road and you're worm food. End of story game over. All you can do is make the best for yourself, those people you love and care about and try not to freak over or get freaked over by the rest of the world.

And that is the one universal truth that people need to get down off their holy rolling high horses and learn.

anon*.* I didnt get to say it this morning but good post. Though not an optimist are we. ;-)

"No Zarm no one dictates truth they figure it out."-R

I like that... good quote. And while I was just reacting that the UN has no more right to dictate truth than anybody else, your points about their seeking the truth are certainly valid. Of course, I believe that there’s only one source to seek it out from… but beyond that point, what would you call Moral Relativists who want to have their own truth? If they’re not dictating it (which it seems they are, if only for themselves- although in the process they’re trying to dictate the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth to everyone else, another of relativism’s fallacies) and instead are figuring it out, what are they figuring it out FROM? Wouldn’t that require… GASP! A source for truth to discover? And if they’re discovering it from themselves, what makes that anything other than a fancy way of saying ‘dictating it themselves?’


"But the christian god is an invention of humanity out of our ignorance and our inability to understand the universe around us."-R

Well, see... that's your opinion, or maybe I should say ‘Your truth.’ Me, I would saying something to the effect of 'Atheism is an invention of humanity out of fear and a desire not to acknowledge the inescapable and undeniable truth of the universe around us.'
The only difference is, I can argue my point because I believe that there’s truth that applies to everybody… while you can’t claim your statement to be ‘true’ unless you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a universal truth that applies to everybody.

"If there are any "universal" truths science will show them"-R

Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard in years. R, science doesn't even have all the answers about basics like gravity and electromagnetics yet... it's hardly a complete system. And even if it were, I don't think you'd find any scientist that would claim that it's a moral compass!


"Each person has to determine what is true in their lives and will allow them to peacefully and effectively coexist with the people around them."-R

I believe my arguments as to why this is complete new age bull that is useless in practical reality are already stated above, but I'll try to put it in a nutshell: Individual morals = useless morals. If everyone decides on their own morals, soon or later those morals will conflict. If everyone decides on their own morals and there's nothing higher than that, then the only way to resolve these conflicts are to beat the other guy into submission or surrender your beliefs. For society to function and morality to work, there has to be something greater than whatever an individual decides, something that applies to everyone, or you've just got a bunch of people in their own semantic little worlds running around and bumping into each other with their own little philosophies that, in the end, against the backdrop of every other individually determined morality, are worthless. Sorry, but there is truth in this world, and living by it is a necessity for society. That why we have laws... because government recognizes the necessity of a standard that applies to everyone, something higher than whatever they individually determine to be right.


"What is true for you is not true for me and never will be. There is no source beyond humanity for nay truths. It is up to just us."-R

I'm running out of new ways to state the old concept... what makes what's true to you 'true' in any sense if it's a shifting 'truth' based entirely on your own ideas? Until we gain god-like abilities to shape the world around us, living with our moralities shaped around us is simply putting us out of touch with reality and the world around us, in which everything is NOT the way we want it to be.
If you go onto a battlefield and declare "I've decided that people should never hurt people, and bullets won't really harm anyone" you're not going to stop the bullets from flying, you're just going to be operating outside of reality.
As long as the playing field doesn't alter to your whim, trying to dictate the rules you use to traverse it based on your whim is not going to do you any good.
I don't know how well I'm communicating this concept, really, but basically: as long as the world isn't perfect and there are things we can't handle or can't understand, how can a moral system where based on just what we know, and often assuming that whatever we think is right is automatically right because we thought it, ever truly apply to that real world?


"And marriage is just another invention of humanity and should be controlled and a part of civil law as all it is is a civil contract and is not bigger than humanity. Nothing is bigger than humanity when it is just an invention of humanity."-R

*SIGH* Also a different board, but let's just say this: Based on your opinion, God, and his creation of marriage, among many other things, are human inventions and myths. But that is, as you have so ably described, based on a reality and a morality YOU made up for yourself, so where do you get the right to try and apply it to me or the country? In fact, where do you get off telling anyone anything, or ever using the words right or wrong? In fact, what gives you the right to even argue my point or make a statement (Even, GASP! A statement of absolute fact, "Man made God" "Man made marriage")...

If everything is subjective and your truth applies only to you?


Isn't everything you're arguing a statement of truth, and one that you're trying to apply beyond yourself? If you say 'Man made God,' isn't that right there something you're stating as UNDENIABLE, OBJECTIVE truth?

This is why moral relativism just plain doesn't work: In order to say that it does, you have to violate it's own nature.


"that brings religion into the picture and most churches would jump on a chance to dictate terms to people and control their lives by saying they are the sole deciders of truth."-R

This is one of the biggest, most irritating misconceptions about the church, and religion ever propagated. As I said before, neither myself, nor my church, nor any other church that I know of would claim that they are "sole deciders of truth," nor that they want to control anyone's lives. That's just untrue.
What they DO say is that God is the sole decider of truth- and they spread the word of what that truth is. You may not agree with it, obviously. But never once does the church say ‘we decide the truth.’ They simply say ‘The Truth has been decided already, and here’s what is says.’ Just like there’s a difference between a referee saying “Here are the rules I made up” and “Here’s what the rulebook said when I looked it up.”
So please, let’s at least operate out of truthful perceptions of who’s-saying-what here.


“And religion is the purveyors of the feel good platitudes without ever sayign anythign useful.”-R

How shockingly odd… that’s exactly what I would say about relativism! How can religion say ‘nothing useful’ when it offers a complete set of guidelines for every aspect of your entire life which, according to Christianity at least, are designed to make one’s life better, improve peace and harmony and quality of life, and generally accomplish the things that you claimed we each had to decide for ourselves earlier? Seems a little more useful than platitudes to me… whether you agree with it or not, that’s hardly ‘nothing.’
Religion provides a path for life that they believe is divinely inspired by a loving God, someone who knows everything and can thus dictate a perfect system, and one which applies to everybody.
Meanwhile, Moral Relativism is a self-created set of guidelines by a series of limited, flawed beings which are useful only to the individual, useless in settling objective matters that apply to more than the individual, and potentially in conflict with every other set of individually determined beliefs.
So, I ask you: which system is the useful one with practical life advice, and which system is the useless one with unhelpful and inapplicable platitudes?

Moving on to part two...


“We are a bunch of semi-sentient evolved primates stuck on and poisoning a fragile rock in orbit around an average sized yellow star in the backwater of an average galaxy in an infinite universe.”-anondeludedfool

I don’t want this to sound as condescending as this probably will, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel sorry for you, and everyone else with so bleak and hopeless a view on life. I truly hope that you are able to find some more hope than that in life. (And please understand that I mean this in all honesty and desire for your good... I'm not trying to be inflamitory with my statements.)
Once again, however, you state this as an objective truth. So why are you even arguing here? If that’s the truth, then at least you can admit there is one.
And, while I don’t want to detour the conversation… look up the facts about this planet, this ecosystem, our distance from the sun and moon, our tilt, our mass, etc. and you will see that there’s nothing AVERAGE about this planet.

“You and I and the pope and anyone and everyone else on this planet are insignificant specks of protoplasm who think we can suss out the meaning of the universe and are so egotistical to think that we are the answer.”-anondeludedfool

Well, as an insignificant speck of protoplasm, why are you trying to tell me anything, then? Devaluing yourself hardly adds to your arguments! :-)
I, at least, believe that we’re something more, and that you and I (and the pope) have far more meaning than you give us credit for.
But, once again you misrepresent me… only YOU (and the moral relativists) are so egotistical that you think you are the answer! Don’t shove YOUR position onto me, because it’s the exact 180 of what I’ve been saying: WE ARE NOT THE ANSWER! That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time!
From my perspective, of course, you already know what I’m going to say: God is the answer, and the one that gives us meaning, because He granted us sentience in the first place.
But whether from an Christian or an Atheist or any other point of view, that’s my argument exactly… we are egotistical and foolish if we think we are the answer! We are just not adequate to determine truth, or ‘discover’ it from any source that comes from us!
So thank you for at least stating that part of my argument so eloquently.


“At the end of the race it don't matter what you believed or what you thought or what you did or what flag you pledged allegiance to because you don't get out of life alive. Bang zoom end of the road and you're worm food. End of story game over.”-anondeludedfool

I’m sorry to hear that that’s what you believe. But you honestly have no way to know this (doubly so if you’re a relativist), so I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t put any stock in a word you’re saying, and continue to hope and live life like it has a purpose. I’ll be praying for you, too.


“And that is the one universal truth that people need to get down off their holy rolling high horses and learn.”-anondeludedfool

Why? If it’s true, then it doesn’t matter, and what’s the point? No reason to change.
And if it’s not true, then it really does matter, and all the more reason not to change!
Why in the world are you saying that people need to abandon their hope and responsibility and accept that there’s no hope and everything’s about them? That’s hardly ‘making the world a better place.’


Well, that pretty much concludes round 1- I’m really surprised that so few people can see the swiss-cheese nature of Moral Relativism… but this conversation has illuminated one thing for me.
In my statements (especially the opening one), I tend to put ‘I believe’ and ‘this is why I think’ and ‘you may not agree’ into any statements except for the logical arguments about Truth. Meanwhile, everyone else comes roaring in, telling me how my beliefs are foolish and naïve, based on myth and unreality, and my views on absolute truth are wrong.


Isn’t it funny that the people who claim that ‘there is no truth’ try to claim ‘the truth’ the loudest, hardest, and longest? Might want to rethink your arguments a little, there, guys. It seems to me that the only argument you can ever muster for Moral Relativism while still remaining within it’s limits is “I may or may not be correct, and there’s no way of ever proving it,” which is a weak argument indeed. :-)

what would you call Moral Relativists who want to have their own truth?

Everyone is a moral relativist, some are just more honest about it. Even religious folks. Look at how much things have changed in the past 100 or so years. At the turn of the 20th century women in the US were not allowed to show even ankles in the cloths they wore, because the good christian people wanted them to be modist. Meanwhile in Muslim countries the artform of belly dancing came about in that time period and the muslims found no conflict between that and there relgion. Now here in the US even good christian girls wear bathing suits that would have gotten you arrested in those days (and in other majority christian nations thongs and toplessness are legal) and don't find a conflict with that and there religion. And today in Muslim countries women must cover from head to toe because Alah commands it. What changed; did the Bible and the Koran change during that century? No just how people chose to interpret it changed.

I'm sorry but people take religion and pick and choose what to follow and what it means to them and they always have. At least Moral Relativists are honest and saying "I have what works for me" rather than picking parts of what ever religion and twisting it to mean whatever they want it to.

Dan straight Fitzgerald my man! And let me put you down because ther eis no reason for hope. I live a better, fuller and richer life than any of my religion freak freinds because i don't worry about the guilt of heaven and hell and am I obeying the church and am I doing what my masters tell me and brainwash me into believing.

The church is lies. The TRUTH is in each of us man. Not some mythological god not some false hope for a better life after this one. Since there is only one life I live it.

And as for tryign to shove your answer on us and me stop trying to get laws passed based on your point of view. Stop trying to have your religion crammed down the throats of people who don't ask for , who don't need it and who don't want it.

And as for this planet being average go look up exo-planetary cosmology. If you are allowed to look at science books that arn't approved by the church. Might open your eyes.

And thats another thing dude. Science is progressive and moves forwards and is all about questions who, what, when, where and how as well as why. All relgion is about is being oppressive, restrictive and denying people questions that arn't approved by the church and fall into the easy pat answers they wanna give.

And as for if i believe that this is the only life well since there hasn't been any body call up from the otherside or drop by for a chat or a quick snack or anything I think its pretty self evident there.

anon-(whatever): Your posts are ill-thought out, and accusatory. You make assumptions about your opponents in discussion that you have no evidence for. You attack distortions of your opponent's position, leaving thier true position untoutched (at best an informal logical fallacy, at worst a form of lying.) These things do not do anything to support you position or attack your opponents, and they reduce your credibility and respectability.

That said, you need to understand the difference between, and the definitions of, three things.

1. Religion is man's attempt to be acceptable to God.

2. Christianity is a relationship. It is God reaching down to make man acceptable to Him.

3. The Church is made of humans who are fallible in their relating of God's person and nature. If it lies it is not God lying. The Bible is not the church and not fallible. As the Word of God, it is truth. If anything can be shown in scripture, then it is true. That is where the only morality I accept comes from.

Well as anon*.* so eloquently put it the truth is found within everybody as that is the source for any one truth. The problem with trying to find a "universal truth" is that the world is not black and white and trying to force a moral or ethical code to fit each and every individual person's life and every circumstance that person finds themself within is like trying to use a hammer to fix every problem. A cultural morality is just the averaging of every individual's moral truths.

Most of the time either due to a desire to avoid friction and conflict or a genuine alignment of moral truths between individuals society can be said to have a common truth. But there is still no such thing as a universal truth.

As for science not agreeing that is one of the good things about science. By continuing to question and probe the universe around us we expand humanities knowledge and wisdom of how the universe works. I have never heard of religion doing anything but oppress free thinking and scientific inquiry. Gallileo was put under house arrest, Copernicus threatened with excommunication. But science is a learning and growing process. Ever changing as our understanding expands and pushes back the veil of ignorance. No sciecne does not as of today have all of the answers. Will we. Probably if we do not manage to destroy ourselves or allow the christian taliban to oppress intelligence.

And besides which no two relgions or even churches of the same relgion are able to agree about anythign from somethign as simple as what cross to use or if people should kneel stand or sit for a prayer to somethign as major as should the church shun or accept homosexuals.

As for my making unequivocal and pointed statements such as man invented god. You are right that is what I believe and I believe it just as furvently and forcefully and truthfully as you believe in the story of creationism and god. The difference is that while I may make my statements in this manner I would not try to get a law to force you to believe the way I do. The christian taliban has tried to force their morals on others without their consent by making laws against thigns they disagree with or declare immoral according to their holy book. Censorship, blue laws etc... history is repleate with the religios oppression of people but the nonreligious freeing of people minds. No one has ever tried to make a law saying that you personally would have to believe and participate in say a same gender marriage just not interefere with two loving caring people who want to do so.

The useless one is the religious one as it requires you to surrender your will to the heads and priests of the church. The ones who interpret and tell you what the bible means how you should feel about it. How you shoudl think and how you should act. While the other one permits you to remain and free and thinking human with the reasoning capabilities you where born with. If you are lazy or ignorant and enjoy being told how to think then by all means continue using the religious one.

Fallen man Anon*.*'s posts are just fine to me. They seem no differnt than any of the christian taliban rhetoric i have seen and heard.

And you yourself make several assumptions that not everyone agrees with:
1:Religion is man's feeble attempt to understand the universe around him and the forces of nature. When religion was invented humanity did not know and understand how lightning and waves and fire all came about or worked so they invented gods and deities to explain these thigns away. So your first flaw is assuming there is a god without acceptable scientific proof. God only exists in the mionds of those who believe in him, sort of like Santa Claus.

2: Christianity is a business and a club. Like most religions. True it is like most clubs a relationship between the humans who belong to that religion and the leaders of the club. And if we are all made in god's image then what is there to find unnacceptable in us. We are all shards of the divine are we not?

3: You believe the christian bible to be the word of god. I do not. The christian bible was written by so many differnt human authors over so many years and edited and reedited and translated all by humans. For humans. Nothing divine has ever had anything to do with that book.

4: and I am very happy that you are comfortable taking directions on your life from a storybook written by humans who lived in the middle of a desert over 2000 years ago. personally I see it equivalent as taking life chanigng directions from the grimm's fairy tales. Keep your book. Be happy with your book. Just don't try and force your stories and your morals you get from that book on those who don't want them. who are quite happy without that book in their lives. I threw mine in the garbage and never looked back. And I am quite happy with the morals and ethics I have developed over my life. They generally keep me out of conflict with people who dont start anything with me.

Which brings me to my final points. Like Anon*.* and others I too feel like I am a much better and richer person for having freed myself from the entaglements and brainwashing of religion. By not worrying about my "afterlife" I am able to enjoy and live this life. I cannot understand why people would willingly burden themselves with the guilt and shackle themselves to a narrow point of view that is based on hatred and ignorance. Hatred of anythign that is different or not approved by the church and ignorance of how htings are or whether it truely is harmful or not.They just blind themselves to the world around them and filter everything throuhg what their religion tells them. That is not a good way to live your life and I feel like I am better for haivng removed those blinders. I have been free and clear of religion for about 14 years now and hope to continue until the day I die. And I have already sworn that there will be no deathbed conversions and if anyone tries to bring a preacher around me I will rally enough to curse themall and pummel the astard who was dumb en9ough to bring one around.

MODERATOR NOTE: I have deleted several words from anonbrainwashedfool's last post above, which I believe descended into name-calling, and one word from Fallen Man's which was a response to those words.

Allow me to make something clear: Do NOT call other people names. I understand that discussion of religion sometimes generates strong emotions, but that does not mean you can't abstain from calling followers of a given religion names, specifically other posters with whom you are having a discussion here. I will absolutely not tolerate it. Thanks.

Hey I didn't think I did any name calling. But oh well its your judgement call. And at least you are being honest about being judgemental.

You addressed another person here with the words, "pathetic", "closed minded," "prudish," and "anal retentive". That's name-calling, and I removed them for that reason.

anon-etc, the problem here seems to stem from the fact that you have a 180 degree view of what Christianity is about- it's not about rejecting as many people as possible, it's about accepting them- heck, it's about INVITING them! And it's not an invitation to join 'the guilt of Heaven and Hell,' it's an invitation to receive freedom from guilt. It’s not about oppressing or restricting or denying questions- it’s about giving the guidelines that will make people’s life better, and encouraging them to keep seeking the answers to the questions that they have!

I can understand why the Straw Man Christianity that you're thinking of is repulsive to you... it would be to me, too. But that's not what religion IS.

Your points about the denial of the afterlife and God because they haven’t come back to visit you on your own terms are… interesting at best. Once again, however, weren’t you accusing US of being arrogant and believing that the universe revolves around our whims? :-)

About your point over laws above, that seems at least semi-relevant to our conversation... laws are something that, like absolute morality, are designed to apply to everyone (or, in this case, everyone within this country.) So why, from your perspective, is it any less valid for us to try to get laws passed based on 'our morality' than it is for you to do the same? Isn't that what law-making is about? Trying to get what you believe to be the truth put into law?
Fortunately, that's democracy... everyone has a chance to get their views heard and considered for law- so why should we have that right any less than anyone else because we're Christians?

As for your condescending remarks about science books above, let me ask you... if Earth is so average, then name me one planet that's like us! One planet where life has arisen, even one planet of similar size, shape and placement that has an atmosphere compatible to life! Sorry, but until we find another planet with some of those "insignificant blobs of protoplasm," I'll continue to assert that we ARE unique in the universe!


And while I’m sorry that you don’t believe in it, I’m happy to report that there is still hope, it’s still available for everyone (including you) who’s willing to accept it, and I honestly don’t see how taking that away from people could ever be considered a good thing… but fortunately, hope is one thing on this Earth that’s hard to get rid of!

Answer to R, part 1...


“Well as anon*.* so eloquently put it the truth is found within everybody as that is the source for any one truth.”-R

Stop and think about this statement for a moment… it makes no sense! We are both arguing contradictory points right now… how can the truth be in each of us if just two of us find a mutually contradictory set of ‘truths’ to begin with? Such ‘truths’ are worthless, because they mean nothing as long as they only apply to us- they have no bearing on the world around us!


“The problem with trying to find a "universal truth" is that the world is not black and white and trying to force a moral or ethical code to fit each and every individual person's life and every circumstance that person finds themself within is like trying to use a hammer to fix every problem.”-R

I disagree. There are truths that apply to every situation- examples like ‘Murder is wrong’ (not necessarily killing mind you- there are some times I will admit that is necessary, but never Murder) and ‘Rape is wrong’ are simply truths that apply to every situation. And I think that those are just the tip of the iceberg… there really are truths that apply to everyone, everywhere, every time.


“Most of the time either due to a desire to avoid friction and conflict or a genuine alignment of moral truths between individuals society can be said to have a common truth. But there is still no such thing as a universal truth.”-R

Oopsy. Your bad. You meant to say ‘there might not be a universal truth,’ right?
Because the statement “There is still no such thing as a universal truth” is, um… a truth, and I’m sorry to tell you this, but it seems to apply… well, universally!
As I said, moral relativism and individual truth is a logic trap, a self-defeating concept, and it doesn’t work. You have to violate it’s requirements to make the argument for it.


“I have never heard of religion doing anything but oppress free thinking and scientific inquiry.”-R

Then I’m sorry to say you must not have studied very hard. Or perhaps you haven’t heard of Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, Niels Seno, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson, George Washington Carver, Roger Bacon, Louis Pasteur, and a host of others…
Despite the straw-man church constructed based on the actions of the ignorant in Galileo’s time, Christianity has often been at the forefront of scientific discovery. I believe it was Newton who said ‘science was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him.’


“No sciecne does not as of today have all of the answers. Will we.”-R

Good for you. Well, when that happens, give me a call… in the mean time, I’m not ready to base a view of reality, and more importantly morality, until it does, or at least has as many answers as a 2,000 year old book does. :-)


By the way, mod- does the term ‘Christian taliban’ against which I’ve so fervently argued on other boards count as name-calling? Just checking…


“And besides which no two relgions or even churches of the same relgion are able to agree about anythign from somethign as simple as what cross to use or if people should kneel stand or sit for a prayer to somethign as major as should the church shun or accept homosexuals.”-R

As Fallen Man said above… that’s the fault of the people, not the religion. The Biblical positions are pretty clear: The cross doesn’t matter, it’s the person that’s on it- don’t get bogged down in semantics. Kneeling is considered respectful, but God will accept prayer from any position- don’t get bogged down in semantics. Homosexuals should be accepted and invited in, just as anyone else- it’s just that their activities shouldn’t be condoned (as I’ve said before, just like you can love a uncle who regularly gets drunk and still wish that he didn’t drink).
So what if the people get bogged down in semantics? That doesn’t mean that the religion is invalid, it just means that the people aren’t following it correctly. Just like if you have a blind umpire and a team that plays by their own rules, that doesn’t that the rulebook is bad- it just means that they aren’t following it very well.

Answer to R part 2...


“The difference is that while I may make my statements in this manner I would not try to get a law to force you to believe the way I do.”-R

True. And I would never try to get a law passed that says ‘You must believe in God.’ That would infringe on people’s freedoms, and completely destroy the element of faith anyhow. But that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t hold that position and the position that truth is relative to the individual at the same time- one or the other has to go! (Personally, I’d advise both… :-) )


“Censorship, blue laws etc... history is repleate with the religios oppression of people but the nonreligious freeing of people minds.”-R

Right. Because Christianity has the monopoly on censorship, and the atheistic parts of the country have never tried to force THEIR beliefs on the entire country against the will of the religious… Oh, wait… they have!
That’s what law making is… trying to get what you believe is right to be made into common law if it’s for the good of the people. And you know what? Since we all ‘have our individual truths’ there’s always going to be someone that doesn’t like what the other side’s trying to get made into law, or the motivation they have for it.
But don’t for ONE INSTANT try to pretend that this is a one-way street, and stop trying to assume that because you get your beliefs from, say, your parents and your teachers, and I get mine from my parents and my Bible, that I become intolerant when I try to enter the legal process and you don’t. Laws get made by either side to support what they believe. And seeing as we don’t live in the much-paranoid-about ‘theocracy,’ now do we live in a world where religion is banned (even if it’s strongly disapproved,) then it seems to me the ‘majority rules’ democracy system we have is pretty good at sorting things out and keeping either side from forcing on the other something the majority of the people don’t believe in!
Secondarily, what is it that these minds have been ‘freed’ from? Logic?!? So far, every argument that I’ve heard for moral relativism seems to demonstrate a poor understanding of why the concept is so self contradictory, even a second-grader could figure out that it doesn’t work! Is this the result of ‘freeing one’s mind?’ Sorry, I don’t see it.


“No one has ever tried to make a law saying that you personally would have to believe and participate in say a same gender marriage just not interefere with two loving caring people who want to do so.”-R

Different board. Short answer: Same gender ‘marriage’ is
A: An oxymoron, since marriage is a description of a very specific kind of relationship that involves people of the opposite gender. (my belief)
B: Something that would have a deep impact on the culture, and therefore on people outside of that relationship as well. (an absolute truth- and don’t forget, you can’t deny it without using an absolute truth of your own. :-) )


“The useless one is the religious one as it requires you to surrender your will to the heads and priests of the church. The ones who interpret and tell you what the bible means how you should feel about it.”-R

Wrong again… I haven’t seen this many Straw Men since the Wizard Of Oz! :-)
Religion requires the surrendering of your will to God, and no other. And honestly, you have to admit, if there’s an omniscient creator of the universe, He’s a pretty good candidate for having a better will than ours. :-)


“How you shoudl think and how you should act. While the other one permits you to remain and free and thinking human with the reasoning capabilities you where born with. If you are lazy or ignorant and enjoy being told how to think then by all means continue using the religious one.”-R

I agree that it’s wonderful that accepting Jesus Christ’s forgiveness of sins allows you to become free, and encourages you to truly be the thinking, reasoning human being you were made to be.
I also agree that it’s shameful how the culture today continues to tell you how you should think and act, and, while you’re at it, who you should hate without knowing them any better than a tired and preposterous stereotype, especially if you’re too lazy or ignorant to find out more about them.
So once again, I think that must be a typo at the end, because otherwise your descriptions just don’t match up! :-)


“Fallen man Anon*.*'s posts are just fine to me. They seem no differnt than any of the christian taliban rhetoric i have seen and heard.”-R

Well, considering that you’re comparing the followers of Jesus to the terrorists who blow themselves up to destroy women and children, I can understand how you’d feel this way. I can’t think of anything else to say without descending into flames, so I’ll just ask you this… from an objective standpoint, does anything about that standpoint seem a little bit accusatory or vitriolic to you?

“So your first flaw is assuming there is a god without acceptable scientific proof.”-R

Very well. I am open-minded and ready to hear your scientific disproof of his non-existence, a claim that you made far before and have yet to support. (Oh, right… because it’s impossible!)
Also, in light of the statements you yourself made above that Science does not know everything or have the answers, I am intrigued to hear the unequivocal proof that you have in order to make such a categorical denial.
(Alright, sarcasm aside, aren’t you doing just the same thing, “making several assumptions that not everyone agrees with” and going off of a non-scientifically supported assumption? You’re the opposite side of the same coin, but you’re not doing anything he isn’t!)

Answer to R, the finale:

(I though I promised myself I wasn't going to do any more of these 7-pagers... oh, well.)


“2: Christianity is a business and a club. Like most religions. True it is like most clubs a relationship between the humans who belong to that religion and the leaders of the club. And if we are all made in god's image then what is there to find unnacceptable in us. We are all shards of the divine are we not?”-R

Interesting analogy. But unlike the connotations that a club suggests, membership is open to literally everyone.
Also, just because we were made in His image doesn’t make us HIM. I could make an image of you out of rotten cheese, but that wouldn’t make it good. :-)
And yes, we are all ‘shards of the divine,’ created in His image. But let’s face it… a shard of good does not a ‘whole of good’ make! The ‘unacceptability’ also swings back around to our main topic here, moral relativism, or more specifically, the flip-side, absolute morality. Based on absolute morality, then human beings, with free will, are capable of doing WRONG. And that is what’s unacceptable. But, contradictory to so many of the opinions expressed about Christianity on this board, it’s not about a guilt trip. Christianity says ‘We have to face the facts, we’re already guilty.’ (Which is why I think so many people are hesitant to accept it, concoct and spread false images of it, and generally don’t want to get involved- because absolute morality carries with it a responsibility that most people would rather remain blissfully unaware of, whether it’s reality or not.) However, that’s not the message that Christianity is about… that message is ‘Even though we’re already guilty, this is how you become FREE of that guilt… and all it takes is saying yes, I accept that the consequences were already paid for by Christ.’ That’s not a message of guilt, nor is it an oppressive force… it’s an offer of freedom!



”3: You believe the christian bible to be the word of god. I do not. The christian bible was written by so many differnt human authors over so many years and edited and reedited and translated all by humans. For humans. Nothing divine has ever had anything to do with that book.”-R

Again, also based on your beliefs, without facts… and chock full of moral absolutes, especially your last sentence, a definitive statement of absolute truth. Have I demonstrated yet that life just doesn’t work without absolute truth? Or at the very least, this conversation can’t?


“Keep your book. Be happy with your book. Just don't try and force your stories and your morals you get from that book on those who don't want them. who are quite happy without that book in their lives. I threw mine in the garbage and never looked back. And I am quite happy with the morals and ethics I have developed over my life. They generally keep me out of conflict with people who dont start anything with me.”-R

But if your morals come directly from you, then what good are they in the real world that DIDN’T come directly from you? And how can they govern any interactions with other people who don’t share your self-made morals? If a dispute ever arises (and I have yet to hear of a life in which none did,) how can anything be decided other than morals that apply to you both?


“By not worrying about my "afterlife" I am able to enjoy and live this life.”-R

True… but what if it’s there whether you worry about it or prepare for it or not? Isn’t that an eventuality worth preparing for, especially if what you do in this life ‘has no meaning?’
The way I figure it, if there’s nothing after this, then you’ve got nothing to lose, and no regrets about how you spent your time afterwards. But if there is something after this, then you have everything to GAIN, and there’d be some pretty hefty regrets if you didn’t. So either way, it’s a win/win scenario.

But hey, no matter what you believe, I’m not trying to ‘force anything on you.’ Just something to consider, is all I’m saying…


“I have been free and clear of religion for about 14 years now and hope to continue until the day I die.”-R

And for your sake, I will continue to hope otherwise…


“And I have already sworn that there will be no deathbed conversions and if anyone tries to bring a preacher around me I will rally enough to curse themall and pummel the astard who was dumb en9ough to bring one around.”-R

I am glad that you are such a role model for the tolerance and lifestyle based off of non-hatred that you continue to profess, and that in your much lauded ‘personal morality’ you feel it right to threaten physically violence on someone who wants to save your soul.
If this is how you feel about people that want to help you, then how does your personal morality help you to “generally keep me out of conflict with people who dont start anything with me?”
“I cannot understand why people would willingly burden themselves with the guilt and shackle themselves to a narrow point of view that is based on hatred and ignorance.”-R


Sir, at the risk of saying something impolite, the only hatred and ignorance I see on this board is from your side, directed at the Straw Man of Christianity that you call the taliban! As I explained above, there’s in nothing in Christianity about receiving guilt… it’s about realizing that we have it, whether we want it or not, and immediately receiving FREEDOM FROM IT. And some would say the long winding road up the side of a mountain is narrow and even difficult to follow, but sometimes it’s the only road that will keep you safe and get you where you need to go- and ultimately, make you happier, too. (not being dead will do that, after all. ;-) )
I understand that you see Christianity, or your version of it, as being based on guilt, hate, and intolerance- but I think if you took the time to honestly study it, you would find out that’s simply a load of misinformation- after all, Jesus’ highest commandments were “Repent of your sins, commit them no more, and be free of them” and “Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself,” hardly commands that leave any room for hate!
Just because many of the people that try to follow Him fail to do things correctly, don’t assume that the commands He has for us are any less valid or applicable to the real world and everyone in it, or that trying to follow them won’t result in a richer, fuller, more joyful and more peaceful life than you could ever imagine- if you’re willing to just accept it.

Fine Zarm you win. All the chruches and relgious nutjobs I have ever run into and encountered. All the christian taliban freaks like pat robertson and the guy from the westboro baptist church and chick track and such of that ilk are all good faithful caring christians who all want people to come to god and jesus of their own free will. The people who have beaten and attacked homosexuals where doing so out of the christian values of love and concern for their souls.

And thank you very much but as I don't see anythign after death except the cessation of the bioelectrical activities in the human brain which gives us our personalities and minds and the eventual rotting of our bodies to dirt I don't see it as a loss if I never convert to a lie I will never believe in.

And believe it or not I am very tolerant of christians who do not try and force their faith or belif on people who don't need or want it. The anti-same gender marriage law here in Ohio was a very ugly situation as I reported. SOme people saying it didnt go far enough. And those people generally where calling themselves good christians.

And you do not seem to see what I am talking about. So I will use some examples. I live my life by the way I believe. By the way i have developed based on the experiences I have had in my life. I am a good decent ethical and moral person. That is a truth and a statement of fact. Good in that I try and do the least amount of harm to others and the world in general. Decent in that I am generally not an arsehat towards others and try to be polite unless pushed too far. Ethics and morals are merely descriptions of the codes by which you live your life so technically allpeople are ethical and moral from the pope to osama bin laden and even pat robertson. But my morals may not compleately agree with yours. (actually I am pretty certain that my personal beliefs in everythign and your personal beliefs in everything would not align very well) But my morals are in alignment enough that on the whole and generally there is little conflict in my life. In those instances where there is a conflict between my morals and another person's, such as my exgirlfriend, I try to resolve it using reason and discussion and compromise. If there is no ability to compromise or the cost of changing my morals is too great or the other person will not change theirs then i will have nothing further to do with that person and they no longer exist in my world nor I in theirs. If it is a situation where continued contact has to be made but resolution cannot be acheived then I will seek out either a higher ranking individual to seek a ruling (generally if it is a work related situation someone within the chain of command, outside work this situation does not arise) and willingly accept if not agree with that ruling. The same goes with most laws. I would not steal or rape or counterfeit money. Some laws though ,like speed control, I will ignore or willingly disobey as I do not totally agree with them. But I will do so under my own control and within reason (I am the model of driver's ed safety course when around my schools, buses and other situations, on the freeway I am mario andretti.)

As for the attitudes about religion and churches. As I have said before the churches I have been to the ones I actually attended and those i just visited came off like that. The rhetoric I ahve seen and experienced when fighting against the christian taliban to help preserve freedom in this country have help show me the evil of religion. The church and the bible and religion are all wrapped up in one giant burrito in not just my eyes but the eyes of the church themselves. The denizens of the church. When i get told to my face that it is impossible for me to be a good person or trustworthy because i do not obey a person's religion and until i submit to god's will i will never be worth anything I find that quite offensive.

No it wasnt a typo. How is society saying that you cannot discriminate against another person based on their gender, sexuality, or race a bad thing? That a person's private life is the business of no one but that person and those they ahve invited into their lives. That sexuality is a none issue as wella s relgion should be a none issue. I would love to see a national dont ask dont tell policy enforced for religion. Maybe that would help cut down on some of the moral high horse attitudes on the part of the "christian" hypocrits. How is that comparable to the christian taliban saying that women are property of their husbands. (from the christian bible and told from the pulpit of the allensburg church of christ) that women do not belong in the working world (pat robertson, there is a real enlightened christian), that homosexuals do not deserve the same legal, civil rights and responsibilities of marriage as any other human being. (Citizens for Community Values cincinnati Ohio)

You say that my description of the church is a straw man. Well that is not how I see it. That description is how I have come to see the church from direct experience, research, investigations and just paying attention to the public declarations from the various "religious" organizations that have sprung up over the past few years like bad mushrooms. Ranging in attitudes from christian versions of the Klan to less harmful yet still offensive groups like Citizen's for Community Values. Which by their own admission the only values anyone should ever have is the "christian" values they have approved. So it is not a straw man. It is a sampling of the larger relgion in america as a whole and can tell me a lot about the religion in the same way a water sample from the lake can tell me a lot about the lake as a whole. True there is still goign to be local variations on the average and that is true in relgion or the lakes.

But anyhow. To sum up. I do not see a problem with the belief system I have for my life or that I am teaching my children. I was never baptised and neither where my children. If they ever become infected with religion and wish to be I will be disappointed in them but will not stop them. Each person has to find their own truths and their own path through life.

And as for the richer fuller life. I don't see that. The few religious people I am around are either hypocrits or are uptight anal retentive prudes (and Luigi please do not edit that out as that was not directed at anyone on this board and I will just have to put it back up here again and again) who have no sense of humor or fun. Its like they want the world to be g rated and a giant disney movie when it isnt and cannot ever be. And since sin is in the eye of the beholder and open for debate from relgion to relgion church to church I feel so much better having wiped that aspect of my psyche clean. This is not to say that I still dont believe in right and wrong or that there is right and wrong. Far from it. But those right and wrong values are based for myself and my children on my experiences and the concept of do the least harm to other humans around me and the world itself. In some ways I am more "christian" than many of the "christians" that i know.

Anyhow, In closing I do not agree with you nor ever shall. In the world I live in, in the world I wake up to everyday religion is a cold heartless shill stealign people's money on a lie. It is better to enjoy your life and not worry about what heppens when you die. And just for the record I ahve been dead (briefly) and had no bright light, no voices of my ancestors, no big bright bearded guy. Just LOC then waking up in the back of an ambulance being told I had flatlined. Nothing more. Thats all the proof I will ever need that there is nothing after death waiting for us. Which makes me appreciate and enjoy this life and this world all that more. All the things I ahve earned and worked for and built with my own two hands. Without divine intervention or help.

R, when you say “Christian Taliban,” are you referring to all Chrisitians, or just the extremists?

R: history is repleate with the religios oppression of people but the nonreligious freeing of people minds
Luigi Novi: And the reverse as well.

Zarm Rkeeg: anon-etc, the problem here seems to stem from the fact that you have a 180 degree view of what Christianity is about- it's not about rejecting as many people as possible, it's about accepting them- heck, it's about INVITING them! And it's not an invitation to join 'the guilt of Heaven and Hell,' it's an invitation to receive freedom from guilt. It’s not about oppressing or restricting or denying questions- it’s about giving the guidelines that will make people’s life better, and encouraging them to keep seeking the answers to the questions that they have! I can understand why the Straw Man Christianity that you're thinking of is repulsive to you... it would be to me, too. But that's not what religion IS.
Luigi Novi: Well, the Christianity that you describe may be your version of it. But it isn’t everyone’s, as there are indeed Christians who reject, who emphasize guilt, etc. Thus, a reference to this isn’t a Straw Man, but a description of at least some Christians.

Zarm Rkeeg: About your point over laws above, that seems at least semi-relevant to our conversation... laws are something that, like absolute morality, are designed to apply to everyone (or, in this case, everyone within this country.) So why, from your perspective, is it any less valid for us to try to get laws passed based on 'our morality' than it is for you to do the same? Isn't that what law-making is about? Trying to get what you believe to be the truth put into law?
Luigi Novi: No. Laws are made to prohibit behavior which violates the rights of others or is presents a clear and present danger to society. It has nothing to do with ratifying the “truth” of a religion.

Zarm Rkeeg (to anon): As for your condescending remarks about science books above, let me ask you... if Earth is so average, then name me one planet that's like us! One planet where life has arisen, even one planet of similar size, shape and placement that has an atmosphere compatible to life! Sorry, but until we find another planet with some of those "insignificant blobs of protoplasm," I'll continue to assert that we ARE unique in the universe!
Luigi Novi: An assertion which has no empirical basis.

R: Well as anon*.* so eloquently put it the truth is found within everybody as that is the source for any one truth.

Zarm Rkeeg: Stop and think about this statement for a moment… it makes no sense! We are both arguing contradictory points right now… how can the truth be in each of us if just two of us find a mutually contradictory set of ‘truths’ to begin with? Such ‘truths’ are worthless, because they mean nothing as long as they only apply to us- they have no bearing on the world around us!
Luigi Novi: But you cannot “prove” them to be empirically true, so what then?

Zarm Rkeeg: Christianity has often been at the forefront of scientific discovery. I believe it was Newton who said ‘science was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him.’
Luigi Novi: What does one have to do with the other? In what way does Newton being a believer mean that his discoveries were those of “Christianity”?

Zarm Rkeeg: By the way, mod- does the term ‘Christian taliban’ against which I’ve so fervently argued on other boards count as name-calling? Just checking…
Luigi Novi: If R is referring only to certain segments of Christianity that practice their religion without respect for others who aren’t of that religion, and is not referring to or addressing specific people on these boards, then I would not consider it a violation of Nitcentral’s rules.

R: No one has ever tried to make a law saying that you personally would have to believe and participate in say a same gender marriage just not interefere with two loving caring people who want to do so.”-R

Zarm Rkeeg: Different board. Short answer: Same gender ‘marriage’ is A: An oxymoron, since marriage is a description of a very specific kind of relationship that involves people of the opposite gender. (my belief)
Luigi Novi: Actually, marriage has historically included same-sex examples. (Fact.) In any case, those who are for it believe the definition, even if it didn’t include gays, can be expanded to include them, since language is fluid and can evolve and adapt in that manner. (My belief, based on observation of language.)

Zarm Rkeeg: B: Something that would have a deep impact on the culture, and therefore on people outside of that relationship as well. (an absolute truth- and don’t forget, you can’t deny it without using an absolute truth of your own. :-) )
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not an absolute, truth, because it wouldn’t have an impact on everyone. In any case, “I don’t like it because I think it’s icky” is not an “impact” that would justify a law banning it.

Zarm Rkeeg: Wrong again… I haven’t seen this many Straw Men since the Wizard Of Oz! :-)
Luigi Novi: Well, there was only the one….

Zarm Rkeeg: Religion requires the surrendering of your will to God, and no other.
Luigi Novi: But there will always be the problem of determining what that will is, when different believers, and different church authorities, constantly disagree on in their interpretations of it.

R: The useless one is the religious one as it requires you to surrender your will to the heads and priests of the church. The ones who interpret and tell you what the bible means how you should feel about it. How you shoudl think and how you should act. While the other one permits you to remain and free and thinking human with the reasoning capabilities you where born with.
Luigi Novi: Or to be non-thinking, non-reasoning, and to hurt other people, using the argument that any morality, or lack thereof, is just as legitimate as any other.

R: Fallen man Anon*.*'s posts are just fine to me. They seem no differnt than any of the christian taliban rhetoric i have seen and heard.”-R

Zarm Rkeeg: Well, considering that you’re comparing the followers of Jesus to the terrorists who blow themselves up to destroy women and children, I can understand how you’d feel this way. I can’t think of anything else to say without descending into flames, so I’ll just ask you this… from an objective standpoint, does anything about that standpoint seem a little bit accusatory or vitriolic to you?
Luigi Novi: The problem I see here is with the deliberately selective descriptions you give to each. A Muslim could just as easily take umbrage with the metaphor for reverse reasons, by accusing R of “comparing the followers of Mohammed to the terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.” Again, my assumption is that R is talking about the extremists, not all Christians.

R: So your first flaw is assuming there is a god without acceptable scientific proof.”-R

Zarm Rkeeg: Very well. I am open-minded and ready to hear your scientific disproof of his non-existence, a claim that you made far before and have yet to support. (Oh, right… because it’s impossible!)
Luigi Novi: There is no such thing as “disproof of non-existence.” The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not someone disbelieving it. Thus, R doesn’t need “proof” for his denial. And where did R make the claim that there was scientific disproof of his existence?

R: You believe the christian bible to be the word of god. I do not. The christian bible was written by so many differnt human authors over so many years and edited and reedited and translated all by humans. For humans. Nothing divine has ever had anything to do with that book.”-R

Zarm Rkeeg: Again, also based on your beliefs, without facts… and chock full of moral absolutes, especially your last sentence, a definitive statement of absolute truth.
Luigi Novi: First of all, the fact that the Bible was written over different millennia, and therefore, by different contributing authors, is not a belief. It is a fact that is derived from merely dating it. Second, where in the above passage by R does he state a moral absolute? He made only empirical assertions. Not moral ones.

Zarm Rkeeg: But if your morals come directly from you, then what good are they in the real world that DIDN’T come directly from you? And how can they govern any interactions with other people who don’t share your self-made morals? If a dispute ever arises (and I have yet to hear of a life in which none did,) how can anything be decided other than morals that apply to you both?
Luigi Novi: Where do you get the idea that things are necessarily “decided” in disputes? Very often, they’re not. What are you saying, that if R gets into an argument and cites the Bible, that the person he’s arguing with automatically surrender? Obviously that’s not the case. What exactly do you think is “decided”? And who says his morals come from him? They come from the species and the specific culture into which he was born, and the moral observations that species and culture has accumulated, the broad strokes of which are mostly the same for everyone, especially in that culture. As for your question about how they govern his interactions, well, you just answered your own question. His beliefs govern his actions. He doesn’t murder, rob or rape other people because he knows those things are wrong.

Zarm Rkeeg: True… but what if it’s there whether you worry about it or prepare for it or not? Isn’t that an eventuality worth preparing for, especially if what you do in this life ‘has no meaning?’
Luigi Novi: Not if the “preparation” entails commitments of time, energy, money and fundamental beliefs that some are not interested in, especially if they’ve reached the conclusion that there probably is no such afterlife. Thus, it’s not win-win, because the “preparations” require you to do things the nontheist may not want to do.

R: And I have already sworn that there will be no deathbed conversions and if anyone tries to bring a preacher around me I will rally enough to curse themall and pummel the astard who was dumb en9ough to bring one around.

Zarm Rkeeg: I am glad that you are such a role model for the tolerance and lifestyle based off of non-hatred that you continue to profess, and that in your much lauded ‘personal morality’ you feel it right to threaten physically violence on someone who wants to save your soul.
Luigi Novi: Excuse me, but forcing religion on someone who does not share it, and who does not even believe in the existence of souls, is itself not tolerant. You’re saying that becoming angry when someone brings you a priest to force religion on you when you don’t want it calls that bedridden person’s tolerance into existence? Sorry, but that’s wrong. Who are you or some priest to make the decision about someone else’s “soul”, or what constitutes “help”? That’s the dying person’s call to make, not yours.

Zarm Rkeeg: If this is how you feel about people that want to help you, then how does your personal morality help you to “generally keep me out of conflict with people who dont start anything with me?”
Luigi Novi: If a priest tries to force religion on some helpless dying person who has made it clear that they don’t want it, it is he who is creating the conflict, not the dying guy.

Zarm Rkeeg: Jesus’ highest commandments were “Repent of your sins, commit them no more, and be free of them” and “Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself,” hardly commands that leave any room for hate!
Luigi Novi: In what way were they his “highest” ones? And what about his “not so high ones” that were not consistent with those lofty ones you describe, and not consistent with early 21st century Western culture?

Okay, R answered my first question. However, let's clarify a few things..

First, putting aside the fact that there are indeed theists on these boards like MikeC who are not uptight, anal retentive, hypocrites or prudes, the rules pertain to all visitors to this site, not just ones who happen to be participating on this one board at this time. After all, what happens if you refer to someone not currently on this board, but who happens to be lurking? Or who later begins participating?

Second, do not ever tell me that you will "just have to put [material that I delete] back up here again and again," as you will do no such thing. When I edit or delete posts that violate our rules, it stays off. Period.

Ok good thing I decided to drop by before going to bed to make sure I am clearly understood whom I am referring to when I say the Christian Taliban. I am referring to those extremely uptight prudish and anal retentive "christians" such as Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps and locally the head of the Citizens for "christian" (oops Community) Values Phil Buress who use their religion as an excuse to promote hatred of minorities and basically anyone who does not submit to their version and vision of what a "true" christian is.

And no I am usually not directing insults or names at anyone here personally on this website. If I do so then you will definately know it as I will refer to that person by name before insulting them. If I have caused any collateral damage with my comments then I am sorry for it and would like to apologize.

And yes there are theists in real life as well as net life that I have not had a problem with as they do not wear their religion on their sleeves or use it as a weapon against others. Unfortunately they are generally in the minority and I do apologize as I should have stated that better earlier. So let me restate that. Generally most of the religious people I am around are either hypocrits or stuck up snobs.

And Luigi in that case then please do not edit my posts unless you have compelling and overwhelming evidence that I have directly violated one of the rules posted on this site. I am well aware that I do skirt the edges but I try to stay within the proper boundries. If I have a problem with someone they generally know about it. As you may have noticed I do not hide behind colloqualism and innuendo, at least not too often. However I have been misquoted and had people say i have said or not said things before so I am a bit touchy about having my posts edited by outsiders. Not to mention that since most of my posts are free flowing thought streams editing something out can have a rather unfortunate effect of causing something slightly confusing to become downright unintelligible.

I am sorry if I insulted or offended MikeC or you Luigi however there is somethign about discussing things with Zarm that has a tendency to bring out the more unpleasant aspects of my personality.I doubt it is anything in Zarm's personal makeup and may not have anything to do with the messenger at all but more the message. Or maybe not even that, as in many ways he sounds a lot like my ex-best-friend and his wife my ex-girlfriend and maybe in some ways I am still running the same arguments I had with them. It certainly has had a feeling of deja-vu talking to you Zarm about this.

Further looking back over everything I should have given you a slight bit of credit for something. Yes rape is bad and evil and wrong is somethign that would be able to be generally considered a universal truth in that everyone's personal truths should align in that way. Upon reflection I would be willing to say that if a significant number of individual's personal truth where to align on a given subject that you could classify it as a "universal" truth. But a truth with an endohuman and not exohuman source.

And yes Luigi I am well aware of the hazards of relative morality rejecting the caring and consideration of others. However as most of that behavior would fall under the harming another category I would not call the person doing so good or decent. They would be causing conflict and would be removed from conflict either from their learning and figuring out that they are an irritant, outside influence such as life partner or friends intervention, or ultimate result legal and law enforcement entanglements or removal by alternative means.

For the most part Luigi I believe you have more eloquently (non-sarcastic usage this time) stated my position and points. (although I find nothign icky or anythign at all about same gender marriage. It is a zero impact event with myself, or my wife) I wish that I was better able to get my thoughts and points across online but sitting down and typing them in requires me to slow down and pay close attention to the keyboard (dang dyslexia) which since my mind runs at light speed means that half of what I wanted to type is gone by the time i get my fingers in gear to do so. I am much better at public speaking than typing.

So in closing. I do not have a personal problem with anyone here, even Zarm and John-Boy or Rona. I have not intentionally insulted anyone here present or past,active or lurker aside from John-Boy. Which was handled appropriately and effectively.

When I refer to the Christian Taliban I am not referring to all christians, just those sects and persons who shall we say go a bit zealous with their faith and attempts to convert others to it, regardless of the others feelings towards it. And it is not christianity alone that i reserve my judgement towards but any and all religions who form as a basis the forceful indoctrination of others or otherwise do not accept that not everyone may agree with them. Like I have stated before I don't care what or whom or how you worship as long as it only involves consenting adults and you dont try to force me to join in or live according to your religious rules. If I want to join or believe in a religion or somethign it has to come from within it cannot be inserted from without.

I sincerely hope that there has been some understanding of what i am getting at brought about by this. Otherwise this has been an exercise in futility that I am becoming disinclined to repeat.

Thanks, R.

No, I don't do any deleting or editing without the evidence you mention. For the most part, I think I've done a good job of applying that judgment, since this was only the second time I've had to delete anything since becoming PM Moderator (the first was when I deleted posts by Peter, who at the time, I thought had been banned). I actually considered deleting the two posts in question, but then I thought editing out the pejorative langauge (and Fallen's reference to it) was better, along with a Mod Note stating that I had done this.

“Fine Zarm you win. All the chruches and relgious nutjobs I have ever run into and encountered. All the christian taliban freaks like pat robertson and the guy from the westboro baptist church and chick track and such of that ilk are all good faithful caring christians who all want people to come to god and jesus of their own free will. The people who have beaten and attacked homosexuals where doing so out of the christian values of love and concern for their souls.”-R

C’mon, R- you’re smarter than that. Stop twisting my words. That’s not what I was saying and you know it! I was defining the difference between Christianity (what it means, what it’s supposed to be) and Christians (who are not perfect, and tend to mess up… though I hardly think that any homosexuals-beaters (and, I would venture a guess about the others as well, though I’m not that well versed with their situations) are hardly Christians… even they are, they are tragic examples of falling far-short of the mark, not representations of Christianity.


“And thank you very much but as I don't see anythign after death except the cessation of the bioelectrical activities in the human brain which gives us our personalities and minds and the eventual rotting of our bodies to dirt I don't see it as a loss if I never convert to a lie I will never believe in.”-R

Fine, but like I said… if this life is pointless anyway, is there any harm in preparing for the eventuality you might be wrong?


“I am a good decent ethical and moral person.”-R

By who’s standards? Your own? That has no relevance and meaning to anyone but you if your moral system is all there is. And by the way, as you noted, that’s also a statement of absolute truth… again.

“Good in that I try and do the least amount of harm to others and the world in general. Decent in that I am generally not an arsehat towards others and try to be polite unless pushed too far.”-R

Once again, definitions based on your own moral system, which are meaningless if everyone’s individual moral systems are all that matter. (By the way… that minister and the friend you want to beat on your deathbed… is that an example of the ‘decent attitude unless pushed too far?’) :-)


“Ethics and morals are merely descriptions of the codes by which you live your life so technically allpeople are ethical and moral from the pope to osama bin laden and even pat robertson. But my morals may not compleately agree with yours.”-R

So where do you get off calling them good? You have no right to say anything about your viewpoint in this conversation if your viewpoint only applies to you! Any statements you make about it are moral absolutes!


“In those instances where there is a conflict between my morals and another person's, such as my exgirlfriend, I try to resolve it using reason and discussion and compromise. If there is no ability to compromise or the cost of changing my morals is too great or the other person will not change theirs then i will have nothing further to do with that person and they no longer exist in my world nor I in theirs.”-R

So, you’re going farther in you ‘created morals’ universe and declaring that people don’t exist anymore, then continuing to insist that this system works in the real world? That’s not a conflict resolution, that’s denial.


“If it is a situation where continued contact has to be made but resolution cannot be acheived then I will seek out either a higher ranking individual to seek a ruling (generally if it is a work related situation someone within the chain of command, outside work this situation does not arise) and willingly accept if not agree with that ruling. The same goes with most laws. I would not steal or rape or counterfeit money. Some laws though ,like speed control, I will ignore or willingly disobey as I do not totally agree with them. But I will do so under my own control and within reason”-R

So, you’re willing to go to a higher authority… why? If his morals only work for him, then what would be the point of applying them? Likewise, if rules exist only to follow when you agree with them, then what is their point? In what happens when this philosophy is embraced by someone with less of a regard for pre-existing rules than you?
Surely you can see that this logic pretzel of ‘personal morality’ cannot create a cohesive society… without higher laws and morals than the individual to govern the individual, all you have left is anarchy!

“The church and the bible and religion are all wrapped up in one giant burrito in not just my eyes but the eyes of the church themselves.”-R

Exactly… too bad that ‘burrito’ is contrary to reality. I understand that’s how you see it, but stop making statement based off of that, because it’s not true. The Bible and the religion are simply not the same thing as the church or it’s denizens.


“No it wasnt a typo. How is society saying that you cannot discriminate against another person based on their gender, sexuality, or race a bad thing?”-R

Um, I was being facetious. But where in the world did I ever say anything about discrimination? The problem is that society has gotten a few of it’s words mixed up. “Discrimination” is one thing. Just like “tolerance” is one thing. “Acceptance” is something else, and “Condoning” is something else. I can tolerate and refuse to discriminate against all kinds of behavior and characteristics, as is, after all, only right.
But just because I choose not to CONDONE certain activities does not in any way shape or form equal discrimination against the individuals practicing them. Like I said before, I may love my drunk uncle, but that doesn’t mean I need to condone his drinking to do so!


“I would love to see a national dont ask dont tell policy enforced for religion.”-R

Yep, muzzle that free speech! That’s the way to peace and prosperity!


“How is that comparable to the christian taliban saying that women are property of their husbands.”-R

Wrong. Not from the Christian Bible (which I daresay you will find it hard to refute with yours in the trash!) The Bible says that women are to submit to their husbands and obey them- and then it turns right around and tells the husbands to do the same! So once again, please don’t try to claim that you’re not working off of a Straw Man here!


“that women do not belong in the working world (pat robertson, there is a real enlightened christian”-R

As has been previously explained, Pat Robertson does not speak for Christ. He may think he does, but that doesn’t mean a thing!


“that homosexuals do not deserve the same legal, civil rights and responsibilities of marriage as any other human being.”-R

Arrgggg! I am going to tear out my hair over this annoying argument, all it does is go in circles! This belief is based on the definition of marriage, and to Christians, marriage is a word used to specifically describe the relationship between one man and one woman as ordained and blessed by God. Saying that Homosexuals should be included in marriage is like saying a circle should be called a square… they AREN’T the same thing! They may both be shapes, but the term ‘square’ is a term that only applies to a specific kind of shape. This isn’t being discriminatory against circles, it’s just being honest about what’s what. There is no attempt to deny them the same marriage rights as anybody else… the ability to marry anyone of the opposite gender- because that’s what a Marriage IS!
I will be happy to continue this on the appropriate board (where I have tried to explain this concept many times over already) but it comes down to this… no one is trying to deny homosexuals any rights that belong to any other human being… the only difference between our to ways of thinking is what we define as ‘the right.’ One side believes it’s ‘the right to marry whoever you love’ and the other side believes that it’s ‘the right to marry anyone of the opposite gender because that’s what Marriage is!’

“You say that my description of the church is a straw man. Well that is not how I see it. That description is how I have come to see the church from direct experience, research, investigations and just paying attention to the public declarations from the various "religious" organizations that have sprung up over the past few years like bad mushrooms.”-R

Well, obviously that’s how you see it, but that doesn’t make it reality… I see you as looking similar to John Delancie from Star Trek, because of course he played ‘Q,’ but that doesn’t make it any closer to reality!
You continue to spout positions that are 180 the exact opposite of the Christian teachings, and that’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of FACT. So, please, don’t try to claim that because YOU SEE IT that way, it’s no longer a Straw Man!


“It is a sampling of the larger relgion in america as a whole and can tell me a lot about the religion in the same way a water sample from the lake can tell me a lot about the lake as a whole.”-R

Except that you’re not testing the water, you’re just testing the reeds growing on the surface, and whenever you find a clump of pond scum, you go around heralding it as the norm for not only the water, but the reeds as well. Yes, the one’s that are the most off-base often scream the loudest and seem to be all that there is- but that doesn’t make them the norm, the average, or even representative of a small percentage of Christians, no matter how loud they scream or how much anyone buys into it. The only accurate representations of Christianity are God’s words in the Bible. There are plenty of good pastors and preachers that come close, but when it gets down to it, only God’s word tells you what Christianity truly is. Not Pat Robertson, not a hate group that claims to do things in God’s name, and not this First National Church of Straw that you are posting about.


“Each person has to find their own truths and their own path through life.”-R

Even if that path is say, becoming an axe murder or blowing up the World Trade towers? Because after all, without absolute morals, theirs is absolutely no way to say that any of those things are WRONG. How many times in the past two days alone have you made statements that use the absolute morals and absolute truth that you continue to decry as unnecessary in life? Try to go one day without making an absolute statement… or even one post in which you actually further your point, and then tell me that personal morality is all that matters and absolutes aren’t necessary!


“And since sin is in the eye of the beholder”-R

In your opinion, which, as you’ve repeatedly professed, has no meaning to anyone but you. Because, that was ANOTHER (drum roll, please…) absolute statement!


“I feel so much better having wiped that aspect of my psyche clean.”-R

No offense intended, but just like pretending another person doesn’t exist, denial doesn’t create solutions or cleanliness, it just creates… well, denial.


“This is not to say that I still dont believe in right and wrong or that there is right and wrong. Far from it. But those right and wrong values are based for myself and my children on my experiences and the concept of do the least harm to other humans around me and the world itself.”-R

Which makes them worthless. Right and Wrong only have meaning when they are absolute, otherwise they are a shifting scale based on human whim and easily navigated by saying ‘if I want to do it, it’s not wrong.’ If Right and Wrong aren’t beyond you, and are instead subjective to you, then they can’t be a guide to you or the world.


“In the world I live in, in the world I wake up to everyday religion is a cold heartless shill stealign people's money on a lie.”-R

Yes, but as you keep telling me, that’s the world you made up with your own morality and your own rules. And as I keep telling you, it’s not the real one.


“Just LOC then waking up in the back of an ambulance being told I had flatlined. Nothing more. Thats all the proof I will ever need that there is nothing after death waiting for us.”-R

Well, you never stayed ‘after death,’ so I wouldn’t be too sure. I think God’s smart enough to say, ‘Don’t go and get him, he’s not coming to stay.’
But, hey… it’s your choice. I just wish you would make it based on a realistic view of the world and religion, not the false version you’ve perceived.


Well, job's a callin', so I guess I'll have to get to the rest later.

Happy posting!

One other thing before I go:

"Luigi Novi: In what way were they his “highest” ones? And what about his “not so high ones” that were not consistent with those lofty ones you describe, and not consistent with early 21st century Western culture?"

Um, because he said so. Using phrases like 'But the greatest of these is this:'

Zarm,

I'm a decent and moral person, and no -- not just by my own standards, but by the standards of the Torah -- but according to you, I'm still going to Hell.

(Actually, Scott, assuming you were methodically following the Torah, there would be a strenuous debate among Christians as to whether or not you would go to Hell.)

Well, from what I understand of Zarm's creed as he's espoused it here (and note: if I'm wrong, I apologize to Zarm in advance), because I don't believe Jesus was the Son of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and haven't accepted him as the Messiah, I am doomed to hell.

First off I have to agree with ScottN's interpretation of what Zarm has plainly stated before. If you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior and he is the messiah you are going to hell. Well see you there Scottn. I've already got a room reserved and several of my cousins are holding a mangement position open for me. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. ;-)

Now speakign of defintions and such: Zarm you are right we use two different lagnuages and interpretations of words. I use broad, open minded, inclusive definitions of thigns like marriage and rights while you use narrow, closed minded, exclusive definitions. Also it is valid for me to describe myself as a good, decent, and ethical and moral person as i stated when I did so. Good means doing the least amount of harm to those around me and the world in general while decent means that i am helpful, polite and a regular ol boyscout.

Right and wrong are by definition endo and exo-individual. Endo in that what is right for me may not be right for ScottN or Luigi on one level. But Right is also exo-individual on another layer as it would not be right for a person to do something that harms another individual, ewither directly or indirectly. Allow me to explain with a few examples: i am married with 2 kids. It would not be right on an endoindividual scale for me to go out and take a big chunk of my paycheck and get drunk and drugged and get a hooker, as that does me direct physical harm to my health. But that is also exo-individual as I am married and doing those actions would cause my wife and children harm from my possibly going to jail or getting a disease or otherwise not having the money available to support them. One of the reasons I do not do so.

Realizing that morals and ethics are just the way we decide to live our lives and rejecting the "christian" morals does not automatically make a person a bad or evil or less good person in and of itself. If a person is considered good or wishes to be considered good they will not harm another.

By denying two people who love each other the ability to get married that does harm and is evil, wrong and does discriminate. No-one is askign you to condone or askign you for your permission as your permission or condonement is irrelevent and non-essential. People who love each other will find a way regardless and all the christian taliban does by forcing the issue is turn more people away from christianity in particular and religion in general.All rational free people are doing is asking the christian taliban to go play in their corner of the sandbox and let us have our corner of the sandbox about this. The whole love the homosexual hate the homosexuality thing is stupid and hypocritical in my views as it smacks of something like love the balck hate the blackness (not sure if that is a good analogy but people should be able to figure out what I am getting at)

Now as for the deathbed conversion. That will never happen. Any true friend of mine would know better than insult me and my intelligence like that. Also doing so would be in my view the equivalent of knowing that the brakes could fail on my car so i pack a parachute just in case. In other words pointless, useless and excessively irrelevent.

Which is sort of like me and you even having this discussion as I will never convert to religion of any kind and if I did it would probably be Wicca or Shamanism. I would rather die slowly and painfully than be forced to be "christian" That is my right and choice. You do not have to like it condone it or do anything other than deal with it and stay out of my life about it. Which is what people are asking the christian taliban to do about all the BS they are trying to outlaw. Which is discriminatory by trying to exclude people from enjoying the freedoms america grants to all equally. It doesnt say to all except those who follw a strict and narrow moral code. Just the law.

The founding father's where not christians and they had just fled a country where there was a strong and oppressive central church. They wanted to keep religion very far from government because they saw the abuses of the system. Now with the christian taliban trying to reverse and destroy that seperation all good people must fight them. Must realize that in america what two consenting adults do with each other or themselves is no body's business but their own as long as it does not do harm to outsider's. And so far same gender MARRIAGE has never been proven by a non-christian taliban source to be harmful.

Here we are again. Judaism is a religion, (and one I have the utmost of respect for!) It is Man reaching up to God. Christianity is different. It is God reaching down to Man. According to the new testament, your actions can not save you from Hell. We are saved by grace, not by works. Many people seem to assume that we are happy to see people who do not believe as we do die and know that they are going to Hell. This is an enourmous misconception, based on a few fringe cases of vengeful people who say that they are Christian, but simply are not acting as God has commanded they should. I've never even so much as seen your face, ScottN, but if it came down to the wire, I would take a bullet for you simply for fear that you might go to Hell, while I am sure that I would go to Heaven.

But on to the point that the title of this thread consists of and from which many have strayed...

It seems to me that most of the members of this thread are willing to accept some actions as right and some as wrong, but not accept absolutism. To them I simply pose this question: Aren't right and wrong absolutes?

“R, when you say “Christian Taliban,” are you referring to all Chrisitians, or just the extremists?”-Luigi Novi

Should it matter? Comparing Christians to the Taliban is highly offensive, and making such a distinction is also offensive… since you define ‘extremists’ however you want (and, in the context used, it seems to mean ‘whatever I don’t agree with,’) such a term can still apply wherever the user decides they want it to apply… the end result becoming that anyone they don’t agree with becomes ‘taliban,’ and considering that this board is based on a disagreement, that seems like a fairly poor precedent to set!


“Luigi Novi: Well, the Christianity that you describe may be your version of it. But it isn’t everyone’s, as there are indeed Christians who reject, who emphasize guilt, etc. Thus, a reference to this isn’t a Straw Man, but a description of at least some Christians.”


I disagree. It may be a reflection of some Christians, I will admit. But despite the many squabbles and re-interpretations, there’s only one Christianity, no matter how many Christians choose to look at it otherwise.


“Luigi Novi: No. Laws are made to prohibit behavior which violates the rights of others or is presents a clear and present danger to society. It has nothing to do with ratifying the “truth” of a religion.”

I never said it had to do with ratifying the truth of a religion. But I did say based on the morals of an individual. After all, there are different opinions of what constitutes “violates the rights of others or is presents a clear and present danger to society.” The British considered it their ‘right’ to barge into the homes of the colonists and take whatever they need. It was also beneficial to society, as it aided the British army. The colonists considered it their ‘right’ to live in peace and have no trespassers, and
Considered that peace and security beneficial to society. Eventually, it had to come down to who’s ‘morality’ was right, and in that case, the people decided that their laws should reflect their belief of what constitutes rights and the good of society. And honestly, if lawmaking is about the will and good of the people, I continue to ask what would allow an atheist to participate in this rightfully- seeking what he considers the good of the people to becoming law, while a Christian is somehow wrong in doing the same thing because his beliefs come from a different source?
It’s discrimination and double standard and nothing else… Christians seeking to get laws passed based on their beliefs about what is good, right, and helpful to society are no different from atheists seeking to get laws passed based on their beliefs about what is good, right, and helpful to society.


“Luigi Novi: An assertion which has no empirical basis.”

How can you say that? Isn’t the lack of any known ‘peer planets’ sufficient to say that we are without peers unless we discover otherwise? After all, isn’t one of the arguments you continually employed on the E vs. C boards ‘what science may theoretically discover some day has no basis on the facts as we know them now?’


“Luigi Novi: But you cannot “prove” them to be empirically true, so what then?”

Exactly what I was proposing in the first place: realize that neither of them are, being mutually contradictory. And since one statement is based on the requirement that two personal truths are not contradictory, that one is obviously false.
While we may not be able to prove, empirically, that one or the other is right, we can, at the very least, eliminate those which by their very nature are wrong.


“Luigi Novi: What does one have to do with the other? In what way does Newton being a believer mean that his discoveries were those of “Christianity”?”-R

Hmmm… actually, that quote probably belongs on the next paragraph. I just added it in at the end because I liked the quote. :-)


“Luigi Novi: If R is referring only to certain segments of Christianity that practice their religion without respect for others who aren’t of that religion, and is not referring to or addressing specific people on these boards, then I would not consider it a violation of Nitcentral’s rules.”

Obviously, I addressed this above, but based on the numerous Straw Man arguments above, I consider this an unfair and insulting label which can be automatically used to discredit any position that the user disagrees with by labeling it ‘not respecting others.’
IE, believing that Man is inherently sinful by nature, a basic tenet of Christianity, could be labeled ‘christian taliban’ because it’s an opinion that makes others uncomfortable even though it does not affect them. Honestly, the intent behind the term seems to be enough to disqualify it, as well as the fact that no matter what Straw Men are set up, Christianity are incomparable, 180-opposites of each other that intersect briefly in that they both believe in a God. That’s it. Comparing any aspect of Christianity to the taliban is profoundly offensive, and I get the feeling that if I started throwing around terms like ‘Democrat Taliban’ or ‘evolutionist taliban’ for ideologies I didn’t personally agree with, I would get banned in a heartbeat.


“Luigi Novi: Actually, marriage has historically included same-sex examples. (Fact.) In any case, those who are for it believe the definition, even if it didn’t include gays, can be expanded to include them, since language is fluid and can evolve and adapt in that manner. (My belief, based on observation of language.)”

Truthfully, I’d need to see some proof for that ‘fact’ (besides the Roman empire, of course) before I bought that… by the way, wouldn’t a fact be an objective truth?
And yes, I understand that there are people that think that definition can be expanded… they’re obviously not the ones who consider it sacred. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are not included in the definition, there are many others who believe that it should not/cannot be changed without changing what marriage is and devaluing it, and (to put it in terms that apparently would be acceptable on this board) I for one am tired of all of those activist left-wing taliban trying to push their personal beliefs down our throats! (yes, sarcasm intended!)


“Luigi Novi: No, it’s not an absolute, truth, because it wouldn’t have an impact on everyone. In any case, “I don’t like it because I think it’s icky” is not an “impact” that would justify a law banning it.”

If you think that ‘I think it’s icky’ is the basis of the arguments against, then you obviously haven’t done your research- the arguments are based on large part specifically on the fact that it WOULD have an impact on the culture, and one that would affect everybody.
And by the way, I really tire of this ‘creative language’ that’s used in this term… no one is trying to ‘ban’ gay marriage… it doesn’t exist! The other side is trying to CREATE it. Calling opposition of gay marriage banning it would be, to borrow your term, “disproof of non-existence.”


“Luigi Novi: Well, there was only the one….”

How did I know someone was going to say that? :-)


“Zarm Rkeeg: Religion requires the surrendering of your will to God, and no other.
Luigi Novi: But there will always be the problem of determining what that will is, when different believers, and different church authorities, constantly disagree on in their interpretations of it.”

Once again, I would say take your cue from the Bible and no other. But even with the difficulty of determining that aside, it still negates R’s Straw Man of surrendering your will to priests and heads of the church.


“Zarm Rkeeg: Well, considering that you’re comparing the followers of Jesus to the terrorists who blow themselves up to destroy women and children, I can understand how you’d feel this way. I can’t think of anything else to say without descending into flames, so I’ll just ask you this… from an objective standpoint, does anything about that standpoint seem a little bit accusatory or vitriolic to you?
Luigi Novi: The problem I see here is with the deliberately selective descriptions you give to each. A Muslim could just as easily take umbrage with the metaphor for reverse reasons, by accusing R of “comparing the followers of Mohammed to the terrorists who blow up abortion clinics.” Again, my assumption is that R is talking about the extremists, not all Christians.”

Two counters:
A: I was not objecting to being compared to Muslims- that description is not how I see them. I was objecting to comparisons to the Taliban, which, last I checked, was a terrorist organization. If there is some other aspect to the Taliban, I wasn’t aware of it.
B: The pretenders who blow up abortion clinics are not Christians in my book, and even comparing me to THEM is profoundly offensive, if unintentional. I imagine that it is the same way to muslims who hear the terrorists referred to as legitimate, run-in-the-mill muslims. It’s not a fair or accurate description to identify a group by fringe lunatics who try to hid behind their name… and really, is it anything other than hate-speech? But does R honestly sound like he’s talking about anyone other than the Christian church on the whole?


“Luigi Novi: There is no such thing as “disproof of non-existence.” The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not someone disbelieving it. Thus, R doesn’t need “proof” for his denial. And where did R make the claim that there was scientific disproof of his existence?”

He made the categorical statement that God doesn’t exist… and his opinions on religion considered, I assumed this was based on the scientific mode. However, I’d be happy to extend the proof to any ‘disproof.’
However, he was the one making the claim first (there is no God)… I simply disbelieve it. :-)
My point was that he can’t prove that any more than I can prove that there IS. In the end, God is beyond our ability to prove or deny with any objective certainty.


“Luigi Novi: First of all, the fact that the Bible was written over different millennia, and therefore, by different contributing authors, is not a belief. It is a fact that is derived from merely dating it. Second, where in the above passage by R does he state a moral absolute? He made only empirical assertions. Not moral ones.”

I was responding to R’s last quoted statement ‘Nothing divine has ever had anything to do with that book.’ The authorship (where pen and paper are concerned) are not in dispute, but the authorship (the inspiration and source of the words) is, and once again R was stating an absolute truth in his assertion. And yes, you’re right, not a moral truth. Got my terms mixed up from another debate there… sorry!


“Luigi Novi: Where do you get the idea that things are necessarily “decided” in disputes? Very often, they’re not. What are you saying, that if R gets into an argument and cites the Bible, that the person he’s arguing with automatically surrender?”

No, I’m saying that if there is a conflict of personal morals (‘Stealing is wrong’ ‘stealing is justified if I think I need it’) then both morals are useless for determining right and wrong… only a moral system higher than their personal morals, one that applies equally to both, can adequately do this.


“Luigi Novi: And who says his morals come from him? They come from the species and the specific culture into which he was born, and the moral observations that species and culture has accumulated, the broad strokes of which are mostly the same for everyone, especially in that culture. As for your question about how they govern his interactions, well, you just answered your own question. His beliefs govern his actions. He doesn’t murder, rob or rape other people because he knows those things are wrong.”


His morals come from him, because regardless of the influences upon him, HE is the one that decides what to accept and what morals are right, as he’s already said himself.
Once again, you say he does the things based on what he knows is wrong… but wrong based on WHAT? If he decides they’re wrong, then the system is still useless because his personal morals will always guide him to what his personal morals dictate, sure… but that still doesn’t have any effect external to him… and what about those individuals who define things that we define ‘wrong’ as ‘right?’ Only anarchy can come from such a system!


“Zarm Rkeeg: True… but what if it’s there whether you worry about it or prepare for it or not? Isn’t that an eventuality worth preparing for, especially if what you do in this life ‘has no meaning?’
Luigi Novi: Not if the “preparation” entails commitments of time, energy, money and fundamental beliefs that some are not interested in, especially if they’ve reached the conclusion that there probably is no such afterlife. Thus, it’s not win-win, because the “preparations” require you to do things the nontheist may not want to do.”

But it’s still win-win, because if you die and there’s nothing, you won’t regret wasting your ‘worthless’ time anyway… in fact you won’t care ‘cause you no longer exist. But if you die and there IS an afterlife that lasts eternally, you might just be glad you invested a little time and effort in it!


“Luigi Novi: Excuse me, but forcing religion on someone who does not share it, and who does not even believe in the existence of souls, is itself not tolerant.”

Come on, Luigi! Sharing your beliefs with someone is not in any way shape or form forcing it on them. If a priest comes in and says “this is what I believe, this is what the Bible says,” he has in no way forced you to do anything, nor has any choice been taken from you to accept or reject it as you see fit, and besides all that, it would appear that he’s doing it out of genuine concern for you! And even if it could in some bizzaro-world be considered ‘forcing religion on you,’ physical violence suggests an intolerance and vitriolic hatred far beyond what someone who is trying to share hope with you for what they believe is your own good deserves! (how’s that for a sentence structure?) :-)
Really though, I inteded the remark as cutting sarcasm, pointing out the double standard of the ‘not creating conflict’ moral system, as I assumed that R was likewise being facetious.


“Luigi Novi: Who are you or some priest to make the decision about someone else’s “soul”, or what constitutes “help”? That’s the dying person’s call to make, not yours.”

Well, in this case it appears to be the friend concerned about your eternal well-being deciding that this constitutes help! If rejecting him and beating the minister is your way of thanking him, be my guest, but don’t have the gall of advertising your moral system as superior!


“Luigi Novi: In what way were they his “highest” ones? And what about his “not so high ones” that were not consistent with those lofty ones you describe, and not consistent with early 21st century Western culture?”

To answer this in detail, Jesus specifically stated that the greatest commandment was to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is also like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40, and re-stated in Matthew 5:44)
These are not an excuse to ignore the Law, or indulge in that which is sinful if we can help it, but they are the greatest commandments.
And what ‘inconsistent, not so high ones’ are you referring to? Jesus never said anything that conflicts with these ‘greatest’ commandments, so I don’t see your conflict there.


And on we go... I'm never gonna catch up!

But it’s still win-win, because if you die and there’s nothing, you won’t regret wasting your ‘worthless’ time anyway… in fact you won’t care ‘cause you no longer exist. But if you die and there IS an afterlife that lasts eternally, you might just be glad you invested a little time and effort in it!

Otherwise known as Pascal's Wager.

"Otherwise known as Pascal's Wager."-ScottN


Ooooh... yet another concept that I really thought I had come up with first... (darn you, Lucas... I had the idea to give R2-D2 hover-jets 5 years before you did, and I have the RPG outline to prove it...!)

While I don't agree with all of the reuftations provided by Wiki (yes, there is the possibilty of other gods or other alternatives, but there is such a thing as 'playing it safe'- the idea could just be restated as "If there is no afterlife or one that won't require preparation, etc...") I do agree that belief based on a fear of Hell is not really much of a belief... this wager is more of a thought-provoker (what-if...?) than an iron-clad piece of logic or a plan for salvation. Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up! (Incidentally, I came up with this particular idea when I was about 13 years old... so that says something dramatic about either me or Pascal... :-) )

Now, as for what came before...


“Or maybe not even that, as in many ways he sounds a lot like my ex-best-friend and his wife my ex-girlfriend and maybe in some ways I am still running the same arguments I had with them. It certainly has had a feeling of deja-vu talking to you Zarm about this.”-R

You’re hardly the first, nor, I imagine, the last to react that way… maybe it IS the messenger. Still, I understand what you’re saying and I’ll try not to offend.

(BTW, if my posts after the point when you posted this are still a bit angry and defensive, it’s because I was responding to things in order of reading them, and hadn’t gotten down here yet. So my apologies if I unintentionally rekindled anything that you already explained here.)


ScottN, Fallen Man answered so eloquently and accurately that I really would have nothing more to add… just that I agree %100 with what he said.


“Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. ;-)”-R

I’m betting that if he ended up there, Milton would be willing to retract that statement. :-)


“I use broad, open minded, inclusive definitions of thigns like marriage and rights while you use narrow, closed minded, exclusive definitions.”-R


Untrue and unfair. I use what I believe to be an ACCURATE definition. Yes, it is ‘closed-minded,’ but only in the sense that any definition of a word, term or concept is ‘closed-minded’ in saying ‘this one thing or set of things is what this means.’ I also use exclusive definitions of other things… the text I’m posting in is black, and the background it’s on is white (or as near as my monitor displays it :-) ). This doesn’t make me prejudiced against blue and red, nor does it mean I’m narrow-minded and bigoted when I look at colors… it just means that I’m stating one of those absolute facts about what IS.


“Good means doing the least amount of harm to those around me and the world in general while decent means that i am helpful, polite and a regular ol boyscout.”-R

While I agree that this is a laudable goal, I must point out that this is once again ‘good’ as you define it, and has little or no effect on the world or ‘personal morals’ of others around you. What if, like the hypothetical bedside priest from above, you end up doing wrong in the eyes of someone else because you consider it ‘good?’ Good isn’t much use unless, once again, it’s universal.


“Right and wrong are by definition endo and exo-individual. Endo in that what is right for me may not be right for ScottN or Luigi on one level. But Right is also exo-individual on another layer as it would not be right for a person to do something that harms another individual, ewither directly or indirectly.”-R


The problem here is that your exo-definition is based solely on your endo-definition. If morality is relative, then it’s circular logic: doing right is good because I believe it is, which is based on what is externally good, which is based on what I believe is good…
The only way your exo- works, “it would not be right for a person to do something that harms another individual” there would need to be an ABSOLUTE standard of Right.


“Realizing that morals and ethics are just the way we decide to live our lives and rejecting the "christian" morals does not automatically make a person a bad or evil…”-R

No, being human does a good enough job of that. ;-)

“…or less good person in and of itself. If a person is considered good or wishes to be considered good they will not harm another.”-R

But, if that good to which you keep referring is relative, then your statement has no meaning, because someone out there (like aforementioned terrorists) could consider harming another to be ‘good,’ and so your statement is applicable, once again, only to you. Otherwise, you need standard of good that applies universally to you, me, the terrorist, and everyone else, regardless of who disagrees with it for your statement to be true.


“By denying two people who love each other the ability to get married that does harm and is evil, wrong and does discriminate.”-R

I disagree. I also seek to ‘deny’ that right to a brother and sister, and a 52-year-old and a six-year-old. But this is not denying them any more than it is denying homosexuals, inasmuch as that ‘right’ doesn’t exist to be denied in the first place under the definition of Marriage. And no, it doesn’t discriminate… it is equally applicable to everyone who falls outside of the definition of Marriage. Just like it’s not discriminating to call only a horse ‘a horse’ (of course, of course!) because that’s what the word means, it’s not discriminating to deny a non-marriage relationship from being called a marriage, because, well, it’s not!


“People who love each other will find a way regardless and all the christian taliban does by forcing the issue is turn more people away from christianity in particular and religion in general.”-R


And no one is trying to prevent those two in love from being in love or doing whatever they want to do… we just don’t believe that it’s Marriage, or should be recognized as such.
But once again, we clash over the definition of ‘Christian Taliban,’ because this viewpoint is not confined to the ‘Pat Robertson fringe.’ The Bible has very specific guidelines on Marriage (not ones we invented ourselves), and now you’ve just lumped everyone from far-fringe to middle-moderate who believes that automatically into the ‘Pat Robertson fringe.’ It’s a discrediting tactic… “anyone I don’t agree with is automatically consigned to the extremist section.”


“All rational free people are doing is asking the christian taliban to go play in their corner of the sandbox and let us have our corner of the sandbox about this.”-R

Untrue. Changing Marriage would affect the culture, the nation, and by extension, Christians as well. If this was something that didn’t affect everybody, it might be different. But it does. And once again, it’s the other side that’s impinging on our corner of the sandbox… no one’s trying to prevent them from doing whatever they want over in THEIR corner of the sandbox, but they’re trying to affect the whole sandbox, our corner included.


“The whole love the homosexual hate the homosexuality thing is stupid and hypocritical in my views as it smacks of something like love the balck hate the blackness (not sure if that is a good analogy but people should be able to figure out what I am getting at)”-R

No it’s not. As I explained it before, my best analogy is “Love the drunk, hate the drinking.” And, while there are debates on the nature vs. nurture of Homosexuality, the truth continues that skin color is a characteristic which is unchangeable (unless you’re Michael Jackson :-) ), and Homosexuality is an action. The two are not comparable, any more than having blue eyes and liking to play chess on comparable.
I’m sorry that you don’t see the distinction, but loving the person while hating the sin is exactly what we’re supposed to do… after all, we’re all sinners- so it would be impossible to ‘love one another’ without it!


“I would rather die slowly and painfully than be forced to be "christian" That is my right and choice.”-R

You know, this keeps coming up, and I’m growing rather sick of it. Okay, more than ‘rather.’ Please, enlighten me… how does anyone ‘force’ Christianity on you? Is that like giving you a book review forces reading the book?
No one is trying to force anything on you. But if your belief suggested than someone going out on a cruise on a stormy sea should know how to put on a life preserver, would you be anything but negligent to your conscience if you didn’t at least TRY to tell them about it? Same thing with Christianity… no one is trying to force it on you, but if Christians believe that it really makes a life-or-death (and after-life-or-death) difference for you, would you really expect them not to try and share it with you? Not to push it on you against your wishes… but to share it with you?
You keep talking about Christianity being ‘forced on you.’ Fine. That’s wrong. But try to accept the fact that not all sharing is forcing, and not all sharing, especially if done out of genuine concern for your own welfare, is deserving of the contempt that you give it.


“Which is what people are asking the christian taliban to do about all the BS they are trying to outlaw.”-R

Once again, your trying to do a ‘disproof of a negative.’ McCdonalds isn’t outlawing Rhubarb Shakes by not having them on the menu in the first place, nor are they doing so if they decide not to add them. They’re simply not changing what’s there in the first place. You can’t outlaw what doesn’t exist!


“Which is discriminatory by trying to exclude people from enjoying the freedoms america grants to all equally.”-R


Once again, no one is trying to exclude them from ANY RIGHTS OF FREEDOMS THAT EVERY OTHER PERSON IN AMERICA HAS. The only difference is, you define “Being able to marry any person you love, regardless of gender” as a right, while I don’t. But seeing as that right doesn’t EXIST right now, no homosexual is being denied any right that any other person has, and no one, including the ‘christian taliban,’ is trying to change that!


“The founding father's where not christians and they had just fled a country where there was a strong and oppressive central church. They wanted to keep religion very far from government because they saw the abuses of the system. Now with the christian taliban trying to reverse and destroy that seperation all good people must fight them.”-R

Untrue! The founding fathers (using the term loosely, as you cant really say they were and they weren’t… you have to get into specific individuals) by far and large WERE Christians. They fled because they wanted the freedom to worship God AWAY from that central church! That’s why they created the first Amendment to protect Church from Government, despite the fact that it’s been twisted around to ban the church in many cases instead. If you look at the letter where the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ was coined by Thomas Jefferson (yes, that’s right… it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution, which only prohibits government to CREATE or SPONSOR an official government religion,) you will see that it is a letter of re-assurance to a church that was worried about the government infringing on their rights to practice their denomination and religion!
And no one is trying to reverse the first amendment. Some of the rulings based on a misinterpretation of that amendment that have infringed upon the free practice of religion, perhaps. Trying to pass laws based on people’s moral beliefs, which in this case come from their Religion, yes. But trying to make religion a part of government, create a government religion, or get government to sponsor religion? Absolutely not.


“Must realize that in america what two consenting adults do with each other or themselves is no body's business but their own”-R

Exactly. And whatever they want to do with each other is fine. No one’s trying to stop them. But when they try to bring Marriage and national law into it, then it’s not exactly confined to just the two of them, now is it? Then, it becomes about everybody- that’s the ‘national law’ part. :-)


“And so far same gender MARRIAGE has never been proven by a non-christian taliban source to be harmful.”-R

Actually, (by the way, we are waaaayyyy off topic here, and we should probably move this elsewhere) Homosexual practices have been medically proven to be more risky to physical health and STDs than Heterosexual practices. But whether they’re harmful or not is only one part of the debate, along with cultural impact, family-structure impact, and a host of others. Once again though, a topic for elsewhere. (Oh, and I can’t resist… your quote above, there? It’s an absolute statement.) :-)

Zarm: By who’s standards? Your own? That has no relevance and meaning to anyone but you if your moral system is all there is. And by the way, as you noted, that’s also a statement of absolute truth… again.
Luigi Novi: First, if R comes across someone bleeding in the street, and helps the guy out, I’d say that that act has a bit of relevance for that guy whose life he saves. When people in a society agree live their lives by a system that maximizes happiness for themselves while minimizing unhappiness for others, then it has relevance for all of them.

Second, in what way is “I’m a good decent ethical and moral person” an “absolute” statement? I would assume that R, like myself and ever other honest human being, would concede that there are exceptional times when he is not as moral as he could be, so it’s not absolute. It can be presumed that he is speaking generally and provisionally.

Zarm: Once again, definitions based on your own moral system, which are meaningless if everyone’s individual moral systems are all that matter.
Luigi Novi: Which definitions are those? That helping someone is good and hurting them is bad? They may be subjective, but are they any different from those that can from your religion? In Western culture, aren’t the “broad strokes” of mostly universal?

Zarm: As has been previously explained, Pat Robertson does not speak for Christ. He may think he does, but that doesn’t mean a thing!
Luigi Novi: So in other words, both you and Pat Robertson each have your own individual views of Christ’s morality. How is either of those views—or any of the other various different interpretations of the Judeo Christian religions held by others—at all relevant if they only hold for those individuals holding them, and not for everyone?

Zarm: You continue to spout positions that are 180 the exact opposite of the Christian teachings, and that’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of FACT.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Some Christians do conform to R’s description. They might just as well say that you do not conform to the teachings as they see it.

Zarm: No offense intended, but just like pretending another person doesn’t exist, denial doesn’t create solutions or cleanliness, it just creates… well, denial.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think he said he’d pretend they didn’t exist. I think he was speaking metaphorically, as when people say, “You’re dead to me.” I think you’re taking him a bit too literally.

Zarm: Which makes them worthless. Right and Wrong only have meaning when they are absolute, otherwise they are a shifting scale based on human whim and easily navigated by saying ‘if I want to do it, it’s not wrong.’
Luigi Novi: Now who’s using Straw Men? He didn’t say anything about “whim” or whether “he wants to do it.” Look closely at what he said. He said it was based on the concept of doing the least harm to other humans around him and the world itself. What does that have to do with “whim” or “wanting to do it”?

Zarm Rkeeg: If Right and Wrong aren’t beyond you, and are instead subjective to you, then they can’t be a guide to you or the world.
Luigi Novi: Of course they can. All morals are subjective. That we are guided by them is a fact.

Fallen Man: Aren't right and wrong absolutes?
Luigi Novi: Depends on how you define them. “Killing someone is wrong.” Is that an absolute? No, because most people would agree that self-defense is a valid exception to that principle. So it’s not absolute.

Zarm: Should it matter? Comparing Christians to the Taliban is highly offensive, and making such a distinction is also offensive… since you define ‘extremists’ however you want (and, in the context used, it seems to mean ‘whatever I don’t agree with,’) such a term can still apply wherever the user decides they want it to apply… the end result becoming that anyone they don’t agree with becomes ‘taliban,’ and considering that this board is based on a disagreement, that seems like a fairly poor precedent to set!
Luigi Novi: Yes, it does matter. You don’t see a difference between condemning all Christians and just those he sees as trying to violate the rights of others? (And I’m not talking about whether you think they’re taking away rights, only whether that’s how R sees it.) I don’t see how making the distinction between extremists and those who are not could reasonably be considered “offensive.” I also do not recognize as true the notion that the word “extremist” refers to anyone that I “don’t agree with.” There are extremists of all walks of life and all religions who do not respect others or their rights, and who would take away those rights if they could. Thus, it is not unreasonable, in my opinion, to refer to them as such, like that guy in South Carolina who wants that state to secede from the U.S. and set a Christian state there. If the word extremist means anyone you don’t agree with, then does that mean that you don’t feel that it’s appropriate to call the bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers “extremists,” because I’m simply labeling them that because I “don’t agree” with them?

For that matter, how can I take this complaint of yours seriously when you accuse other Christians of not really being Christian “in your book”? Don’t you see that as hate speech? You’re basically condemning every person who proclaims themselves a Christian solely because they don’t agree with you? Should I delete these “in my book” statements of yours as hate speech?

Zarm: I disagree. It may be a reflection of some Christians, I will admit. But despite the many squabbles and re-interpretations, there’s only one Christianity, no matter how many Christians choose to look at it otherwise.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, and those other Christians I mentioned feel that it’s theirs. If those people proclaim themselves as Christians, then it is reasonable to call them Christians, regardless of whether other Christians such as yourself think that they’re wrong. Thus, if they fit R’s description, then it is reasonable to say that some Christians fit his description. Whether you think calling themselves Christian is right or wrong vis a vis the “correct” interpretation of Christ is a matter for a different discussion.

Zarm: I never said it had to do with ratifying the truth of a religion.
Luigi Novi: True. But you asked if it was any less valid for us to try to get laws passed based on 'our morality' than it is for R to do the same. By that, I thought you were talking about the morality based on your religion. To be more precise, I would say that you can only get “your morality” passed into law if it Passes the Lemon Test. That is the difference, in answer to your question, between an atheist seeking what he considers the good of the people passing into law and the theist doing so (assuming that the theist’s “good” is purely religious, and has no secular purpose).

Zarm: Isn’t the lack of any known ‘peer planets’ sufficient to say that we are without peers unless we discover otherwise?
Luigi Novi: No. It is enough to say that we don’t know one way or the other if we’re unique.

Zarm: After all, isn’t one of the arguments you continually employed on the E vs. C boards ‘what science may theoretically discover some day has no basis on the facts as we know them now?’
Luigi Novi: Not that I recall, offhand. Can you point to where I said that?

In any case, even if I said such a thing, it does not mean that lacking the answer to a question is the same thing as a negative answer to it. Thus, in answering the question, “Are we unique?”, the proper answer is “We don’t know.” Not “yes,” as you incorrectly asserted above.

Zarm: Exactly what I was proposing in the first place: realize that neither of them are, being mutually contradictory. And since one statement is based on the requirement that two personal truths are not contradictory, that one is obviously false. While we may not be able to prove, empirically, that one or the other is right, we can, at the very least, eliminate those which by their very nature are wrong.
Luigi Novi: You said that such truths are worthless, because they’re contradictory and apply only to us as individuals. But that means that your Christian truths are worthless, because they are only held by those who believe and adhere to them—such as yourself—and not to R, and contradict the truths of others, such as R’s. Does that mean that your truths are worthless? And how are truths wrong by their “nature”?

Zarm: Hmmm… actually, that quote probably belongs on the next paragraph. I just added it in at the end because I liked the quote. :-)
Luigi Novi: Okay, let’s pretend you didn’t include, and I’ll restate the question: In what way has Christianity been at the forefront of scientific discovery? Scientific discoveries have been confirmed through the Scientific Method. Not Christianity.

Zarm: Obviously, I addressed this above, but based on the numerous Straw Man arguments above, I consider this an unfair and insulting label which can be automatically used to discredit any position that the user disagrees with by labeling it ‘not respecting others.’
Luigi Novi: I care only if it is being used against specific members of these boards, not whether it “can” be used against them. Should I ban the use of the “monster” when used to describe Osama bin Laden simply because it “can” be used against someone here? Who cares whether some churl might use the term against someone who thinks man is inherently sinful? Let’s deal with what actually happens here, not what “might” happen.

Zarm: Comparing any aspect of Christianity to the taliban is profoundly offensive, and I get the feeling that if I started throwing around terms like ‘Democrat Taliban’ or ‘evolutionist taliban’ for ideologies I didn’t personally agree with, I would get banned in a heartbeat.
Luigi Novi: See, here we have that problem with definitions that you were alluding to before, except that here, it’s you who’s using definitions that are not pertinent to this discussion. R did not compare “an aspect of Christianity” to the Taliban, nor base the term on “agreement.” He made it clear that the term is a reference to extremists who try to force their religion on others and take away others’ rights. By making “agreement” the basis for the term, you are blurring the definition.

Zarm: again, I would say take your cue from the Bible and no other.
Luigi Novi: Those Christians who you say are not really Christians “in your book” would say the same thing, and assert that their interpretations of it are those they came up with by going solely by the Bible.

As for me? The Bible gives “cues” that are not only contradictory, but which I disagree with. So……….no thanks.

Zarm: But even with the difficulty of determining that aside, it still negates R’s Straw Man of surrendering your will to priests and heads of the church.
Luigi Novi: Do you even know what the phrase “Straw Man” means? That’s R’s interpretation of the Church, which is not entirely unreasonable, as there are many who believe it.

Zarm: The pretenders who blow up abortion clinics are not Christians in my book
Luigi Novi: Again, how you see them “in your book” doesn’t change the fact that they proclaim themselves as such, and therefore, they are properly described as such in common parlance, just as the Taliban are properly described as a group that follows an extremely radical interpretation of Islam, even if more mainstream Muslims say they’re not Muslims at all. You said that R compared “followers of Jesus” to the Taliban. He did not. The followers of Jesus number 2.1 billion. The people R was referring to do not. They are considerably smaller than that.

If R sincerely believes that a given set of beliefs or a subset or interpretation of them is “extreme”, what am I to do? Tell him not to express his feelings? I understand that there are some things stated on these boards that others might find offensive. But what is difficult to draw is the line between statements of belief made in a sincere, good faith manner, and statements that appear to be made solely with the intent to inflame or insult others. This is a matter that I am still questioning. Why, for example, did we Dump the Kahane Freak’s uses of the N-word, but not Rona Feinberg’s misandrist statements?

I don’t know if it’s possible to pin down a completely objective standard, but we can discuss and reach a consensus, and my feeling is that R’s use of that term does not constitute hate speech because he is not directing at someone with the intent of insulting them, but with the intent of expressing frustration and anger with a viewpoint that he feels is wrong or hurtful. So long as he confines the use of the term thus, I will not delete it.

Zarm: He made the categorical statement that God doesn’t exist
Luigi Novi: No, he said, “So your first flaw is assuming there is a god without acceptable scientific proof.”. That is not a categorical statement that God doesn’t exist.

Zarm: No, I’m saying that if there is a conflict of personal morals (‘Stealing is wrong’ ‘stealing is justified if I think I need it’) then both morals are useless for determining right and wrong… only a moral system higher than their personal morals, one that applies equally to both, can adequately do this.
Luigi Novi: But R’s moral system pretty much is that system, and is the system that both the religious and the non-religious use, even in indigenous societies that have never known the Bible. How do you explain this? Simple. It’s because human beings evolved morality independently of religion (even if religion was the first system to formally codify it), and that system usually calls maximizing happiness and minimizing harm. It would probably be thus in our society today even if the Bible were never written. That we can come together by the thousands, millions and billions, and all agree to live by this system is what makes it anything other than “useless”, and all without a “higher” (what I take to mean spiritual/religious) moral system.

Zarm: Only anarchy can come from such a system!
Luigi Novi: Factually untrue, as demonstrated from the fact that atheists are not out rioting in the streets, murdering, robbing, raping, trying to overthrow the government, etc, and are even underrepresented in prisons.

Zarm: But it’s still win-win, because if you die and there’s nothing, you won’t regret wasting your ‘worthless’ time anyway
Luigi Novi: You’ll regret wasting it while you’re still alive and in the process of wasting it. I, for example, don’t want to believe in pseudoscientific ideas any more. Doing so is a waste of my time, whereas arguing against them is something I see as a great use of it. If I had to change this, I wouldn’t be happy.

Zarm: Come on, Luigi! Sharing your beliefs with someone is not in any way shape or form forcing it on them.
Luigi Novi: If you show up at the deathbed of someone who has stated they don’t want religion, then you are disrespecting they’re stated beliefs and desires. That is not “sharing”, unless you use a deliberately dishonest definition of the term. R doesn’t want any priest to “come in.” Hasn’t he made that clear? Disregarding that wish is wrong. I don’t care about what he is “concerned” about. Those are his beliefs, not R’s, and he has no right forcing them on him. It is that which suggest intolerance—for R’s right to atheism—not R’s physically violence against them, which is hardly something that someone dying should be accused of anyway.

Zarm: Well, in this case it appears to be the friend concerned about your eternal well-being deciding that this constitutes help!
Luigi Novi: It isn’t the friend’s place to make that decision. It’s the dying person’s.

Zarm: If rejecting him and beating the minister is your way of thanking him, be my guest, but don’t have the gall of advertising your moral system as superior!
Luigi Novi: You advocate having a priest show up uninvited at the deathbed of a dying person who has made their non-religious views and beliefs clear. I do not. ‘Nuf said.

Zarm: And what ‘inconsistent, not so high ones’ are you referring to? Jesus never said anything that conflicts with these ‘greatest’ commandments, so I don’t see your conflict there.
Luigi Novi: Jesus admonished to recognize the Old Testament, which contains many principles and laws that contradict the laws of the New.

And what ‘inconsistent, not so high ones’ are you referring to?

How'd you enjoy your Easter or Christmas ham, Zarm?

“Second, in what way is “I’m a good decent ethical and moral person” an “absolute” statement?”-Luigi Novi

It is stating an absolute fact- that he IS a good, decent, ethical and moral person. Not that he MIGHT be, or that he is BASED ON HIS OWN OPINION, but simply that he IS. And I’m not saying that this is a bad thing to claim- in fact, I think it’s just the opposite! But, you still need to make an absolute statement to assert it.


“Luigi Novi: Which definitions are those? That helping someone is good and hurting them is bad? They may be subjective, but are they any different from those that can from your religion? In Western culture, aren’t the “broad strokes” of mostly universal?”

Yes… honestly, if you embrace moral relativism, you have no way of saying that helping someone is ‘good’ and hurting them is ‘bad,’ except for you… if they truly are undeniably good or bad, then they must apply to everybody, and therefore they must be absolute truths.
And once again, I’m not saying that this is a bad definition of good and bad, just pointing out that once again, to make that assertion- as well as any for the ‘common good’ (presuming that that concept is not also subjective) requires a statement of absolute truth.


“Luigi Novi: So in other words, both you and Pat Robertson each have your own individual views of Christ’s morality. How is either of those views—or any of the other various different interpretations of the Judeo Christian religions held by others—at all relevant if they only hold for those individuals holding them, and not for everyone?”

That’s not what I said (or tried to) at all. Sure, Pat Robertson and I may have our own separate views of Christ’s morality, but neither of us can speak for Him. Only He, and any words He wrote (or, as I’m sure you’d point out, had transcribed) can accurately speak for Him. The rest of us can guess, assume, or interpret as best we can, but that doesn’t make us right!
(BTW, FYI- In our church devotion group today the subject of Pat Robertson came up yet again, and the entire group agreed unanimously that he speaks neither for us, nor any Christians we know. Yes, sadly, there are those out there that he DOES speak for, but just thought you might like to know that there are a lot more of us Non-Robertson-fringers out here than you may think! :-) )


“Zarm: You continue to spout positions that are 180 the exact opposite of the Christian teachings, and that’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of FACT.
Luigi Novi: No, it is not. Some Christians do conform to R’s description. They might just as well say that you do not conform to the teachings as they see it.”

Yes, R may be describing some CHRISTIANS, but not CHRISTIAN TEACHING. While individuals may interpret the Bible one way or another, the Bible does NOT agree with 99% of the Straw Men that he’s been posting. Nor does he describe accurately any of the Christian teaching I’ve ever been exposed to, nor any of the individuals I know.
No, I’m not in denial that there are those out there that act as described. And based on the number of people on these boards that have had bad experiences with them, I’m sorry to say they must be numerous (or live in unfortunately disproportionate numbers around Nitcentral.com members). But to suggest that his descriptions are accurate for the average Christian, or compliant with Christian teachings is absolutely ludicrous and untrue, and I do not intend to allow those slights to go unchallenged or my personal belief system to be unfairly slandered… if you’re going to slander it, do it with accurate info. :-)


“Luigi Novi: Now who’s using Straw Men? He didn’t say anything about “whim” or whether “he wants to do it.” Look closely at what he said. He said it was based on the concept of doing the least harm to other humans around him and the world itself. What does that have to do with “whim” or “wanting to do it”?”

I agree that in this case, R’s system doesn’t seem to be whimsical or poorly thought out in the least. But in general, and even in R’s case should he ever shift his thinking, there’s nothing to prevent a shift based on random whim. If a moral relativist says “I’ve decided this part of my moral code is no longer wrong,” there is no reason to contradict him, since he dictates his own morals. A moral system is no good to guide you if it’s guidance comes directly from what you feel is right in the moment, because it’s not an objective guide to morality, it’s just an internal reinforcement of whatever you want to do in the first place! (And by the way, R, I should make it clear that I do have the utmost respect for the morals that you have chosen to follow… I’m just trying to point out that the system is flawed and easily abused, even if you individually have chosen not to do so.)


“Luigi Novi: Of course they can. All morals are subjective. That we are guided by them is a fact.”

I disagree. If my morals come from the Bible, then they are not subjective to me. (With the exception of whether I choose to follow them, which is a subjective choice about following a moral system, not a subjective choice about the contents of a moral system.)
Additionally, I’d just like to point out that each of those three sentences are made as statements of absolute fact… (Yes, it’s undeniably POSSIBLE for them (they CAN), yes, they definitely ARE subjective, Yes, we ARE guided by them and that is a FACT.)


“Fallen Man: Aren't right and wrong absolutes?
Luigi Novi: Depends on how you define them. “Killing someone is wrong.” Is that an absolute? No, because most people would agree that self-defense is a valid exception to that principle. So it’s not absolute.”

But if you kill someone, that particular instance was either right or wrong. So while the general concept of ‘killing’ may be a right-or-wrong, that doesn’t change the fact the right and wrong still apply individually and unchangingly to each situation.


“Luigi Novi: I don’t see how making the distinction between extremists and those who are not could reasonably be considered “offensive.””

Yes, but his definition of ‘reasonably’ is based on the positions he agrees with, therefore the term can be used to blanket a position as ‘unreasonable’ just because he doesn’t agree with it. For example: People that bomb abortions clinics I think can both agree are ‘unreasonable’ (and, downright evil). But if I believe that the ten commandments should be allowed in front of courthouses for reasons of free speech, historical precedent, and equality with other religious displays allowed on the property, and R doesn’t, then all he needs to do is throw the phrase “Christian Taliban” onto that particular position, and suddenly it’s ‘unreasonable’ just because he said so! So the problem comes with the ability to define anyone and everyone he chooses to disagree with as a ‘Christian Taliban’ just because he disagrees with them!


“Luigi Novi: If the word extremist means anyone you don’t agree with, then does that mean that you don’t feel that it’s appropriate to call the bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers “extremists,” because I’m simply labeling them that because I “don’t agree” with them?”


No, I just object to the fact that if someone decides that a position I believe strongly is unappealing to them, they’ll just lump me into the same category as Bin Laden by calling me an ‘Extremist.’ Honestly, I’d rather just call Bin Laden and his ilk what they are: terrorists. ‘Religious Extremists’ implies that strongly adhering to a religious belief is automatically an evil thing if the belief isn’t popular… it’s a term, like ‘Christian Taliban,’ that has a shifting target group, depending on which positions the speaker considers ‘extreme’ or not.


“Luigi Novi: For that matter, how can I take this complaint of yours seriously when you accuse other Christians of not really being Christian “in your book”? Don’t you see that as hate speech? You’re basically condemning every person who proclaims themselves a Christian solely because they don’t agree with you? Should I delete these “in my book” statements of yours as hate speech?”

Hmmm… you have a point there. Okay, I consider that a fair trade off. I should say, perhaps that they aren’t following Christian teachings as laid out in the Bible, but you’re right- whether they are Christians or not isn’t mine to decide. Feel free to delete/alter those as you see fit.


“Zarm: I disagree. It may be a reflection of some Christians, I will admit. But despite the many squabbles and re-interpretations, there’s only one Christianity, no matter how many Christians choose to look at it otherwise.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, and those other Christians I mentioned feel that it’s theirs. If those people proclaim themselves as Christians, then it is reasonable to call them Christians, regardless of whether other Christians such as yourself think that they’re wrong. Thus, if they fit R’s description, then it is reasonable to say that some Christians fit his description. Whether you think calling themselves Christian is right or wrong vis a vis the “correct” interpretation of Christ is a matter for a different discussion.”

As stated above, you’re right. Refering to themselves as Christians is entirely appropriate- thank you for pointing out my hypocricy.
However, it is perfectly feasible to say that they are not following Biblical teachings… clinic bombers are clearly violating the ‘You shall not commit Murder’ law, while those that condemn others are not “loving their neighbors as themselves.” This is not to say that they are not Christians, but to say that once again, while their behavior may fit with R’s description, Christianity itself (the belief, not the followers) does not. And that seems to come under attack indiscriminately intermixed with the followers. That is what I meant when I said ‘There is one Christianity’ (the teachings of the Bible,) which R has not even come close to describing. It is a sad fact of life that there are Christians- those who want to follow but fall short of the mark, or those who take the name only, or those who are just plain mixed up in what they think the Bible says, who are described correctly. But even though We as people may mess up (and yes, every single one of us does… no one claimed that Christians became perfect, ESPECIALLY the Christians :-) ), but that doesn’t change what the Bible says… it just means that we as individuals messed up.


“Luigi Novi: True. But you asked if it was any less valid for us to try to get laws passed based on 'our morality' than it is for R to do the same. By that, I thought you were talking about the morality based on your religion.”


Exactly. Who are you are anyone else to declare that “I take my beliefs on Morality from Mr. Johnson’s ethics class in college, and you take your beliefs from the Bible, therefore my morality is sound to become law, and yours isn’t?” It is the height of arrogance, rudeness, and discrimination to suggest that my morals are inapplicable to life and law because of where I got them. I don’t care if your moral came from your parents, your Bible (or other holy book), your teacher, your observations, or the back of a cereal box (though I’d be rather curious to see THAT set of morals… :-) ), it doesn’t matter… your morals are your own, and you have every right to act on them, and to receive equal consideration in legal system for them. Otherwise, that’s discrimination on the basis of religion.


“Zarm: Isn’t the lack of any known ‘peer planets’ sufficient to say that we are without peers unless we discover otherwise?
Luigi Novi: No. It is enough to say that we don’t know one way or the other if we’re unique.”

Fine, would a better way to say it be “To the best of human knowledge, we are unique?”


“Luigi Novi: You said that such truths are worthless, because they’re contradictory and apply only to us as individuals. But that means that your Christian truths are worthless, because they are only held by those who believe and adhere to them—such as yourself—and not to R, and contradict the truths of others, such as R’s. Does that mean that your truths are worthless? And how are truths wrong by their “nature”?”


The difference between the two is that the Christian ‘truths’ are designed as universal, while ‘individual morals’ are by their nature are by their nature individual, and therefore can’t apply individually. Who chooses to accept them is beside the point… one has the ability to apply universally, while the other can’t without violating itself.
Second, the nature of the statement he made (the truth is in everybody as the source for any one truth) required that within everybody was the same truth- so even the nature of his belief (that everyone has their own truth) negates that concept, because not everybody shares ‘his truth,’ and therefore if we both have mutually exclusive ideas about the truth, the source of truth must be within one of us, but not the other- since both can’t coexist, being mutually exclusive. And if only one or the other of us has it, or even it’s even possible for one or the other of us to have it, the concept that it lies ‘within everybody’ is by it’s nature flawed.


“Luigi Novi: Okay, let’s pretend you didn’t include, and I’ll restate the question: In what way has Christianity been at the forefront of scientific discovery? Scientific discoveries have been confirmed through the Scientific Method. Not Christianity.”

Once again, you’re right, bad term. I should say that Christians have been at the forefront, and, as I just spent so much time arguing, they are not the same as Christianity.
However, I would ask, how has Christianity been able to hinder Scientific Methods? I think the initial accusation was flawed. However, Christians would have the capability to do so, and, with the exception of the unfortunate times with Galileo and Copernicus and that unfortunate time, have not done so, but instead have often become prominent scientists. So the suggestion that Christianity creates anti-science individuals is untrue. (If that was, indeed, the intent of the original accusation.)


“Luigi Novi: He made it clear that the term is a reference to extremists who try to force their religion on others and take away others’ rights.”

But by using that term on whatever group he selects, he locks the argument into whatever his definitions of ‘forcing religion on others’ (which, as I said before, is an utterly ridiculous concept anyway) and ‘taking away rights.’ I’ve made a strong case for why I believe, for example, that in the case of Gay Marriage, no rights are being taken away. But R doesn’t agree, and in using the ‘Christian Taliban’ label, attempts to automatically discredit (by lumping it in with those he considers extremists) this position with name calling instead of rational argument. So it becomes extreme not by it’s nature, but just by the fact that he considers is extreme.
And note that I also said ‘describing ideologies,’ not describing individuals. So, if that’s no problem here, so long as I don’t target specific individuals…


“Luigi Novi: As for me? The Bible gives “cues” that are not only contradictory, but which I disagree with. So……….no thanks.”

A: No, I don’t believe that it does give contradictory ‘cues,’ and I’d happily debate you on that.
B: See, that’s the problem with ‘individual morality.’ If there’s an objective morality, then there’s an unyielding guideline on what’s right and wrong, no matter how you may ‘feel about it.’ With a subjective morality, anything you don’t agree with is automatically shunted aside to the ‘must not be wrong because I say it’s not’ category. Therefore, it’s based entirely on the whim of the individual creating it, and honestly has no value as a guide, because it’s the exact same think as doing what one wants to do, regardless of morals in the first place. Anything that enters that morality is both subject to your whim: I won’t do this because I acknowledge it’s wrong (but if I ever decide that it’s not wrong, then that’s correct, too.) and based on objective truth. (It’s wrong based on what? It harms people? Fine. So harming people is bad… based on what? Sooner or later, there has to be a standard beyond you or your ‘individual morality’ is just you telling yourself what you want to hear and subject to your change at any time.)


“Luigi Novi: Do you even know what the phrase “Straw Man” means? That’s R’s interpretation of the Church, which is not entirely unreasonable, as there are many who believe it.”

Yes, Luigi, I do. Being ignorant of the basic of Logical Fallacies in the past was enough for me. And I submit that it is what’s happening here: R makes an untrue statement of what Christianity is or says, based on his own beliefs and not what Christianity says or teaches, and then attacks or disparages it. R was claiming that this is what a religious worldview requires. Well, the Bible on which the worldview is based does not agree with that, and my own life with a religious worldview does not require that, so the statement is not true. (Although I admit that since it was used as a blanket statement for all religion, it could apply to some religions. However, as it was used, saying that ALL religions require this as a matter of empirical fact, it is untrue.)


“Luigi Novi: Again, how you see them “in your book” doesn’t change…”

Just a little snippet of the quote and an admission that yes, as I stated above, you’re right about that. Also, I was not aware of that definition of the Taliban.

“Luigi Novi: If R sincerely believes that a given set of beliefs or a subset or interpretation of them is “extreme”, what am I to do? Tell him not to express his feelings?”

Well, I can see your point here… let me put it this way. I object to the use of the term because it seems to be used equally to describe a range of positions, from bombing clinics (which I vehemently detest) to disagreeing with Gay Marriage (which I actively support.)
So half the time, it is directed at me, and even worse than that, it seems to be trying to lump me in with the clinic bombers. But I agree that there’s no way to objectively say: “you can call this extreme, and not this,” so I’ll just try to assume that it’s not directed at me. But R, if it’s a position I’m arguing, I’d prefer a debate about it, not an instant dismissal of the position via ‘talibaning.’ If that is acceptable, then I’ll withdraw my objections.


“Luigi Novi: that term does not constitute hate speech because he is not directing at someone with the intent of insulting them, but with the intent of expressing frustration and anger with a viewpoint that he feels is wrong or hurtful.”

Granted… can I then consider the ‘lover the sinner, hate the sin’ point conceded in my favor, since that seems to be exactly what you’re describing? :-)


“Zarm: He made the categorical statement that God doesn’t exist
Luigi Novi: No, he said, “So your first flaw is assuming there is a god without acceptable scientific proof.”. That is not a categorical statement that God doesn’t exist.”

But R also said, “the christian god is an invention of humanity.”


“Luigi Novi: But R’s moral system pretty much is that system,”

No it isn’t. It is, by it’s nature, only applicable to him. It’s based off of a system that society deems acceptable, but, in the end, it’s still just his system. And likewise, societies system is either subjective “We collectively, or our lawmakers or a judge invented this definition,” which leads to the same issue, or object, meaning that they simply acknowledge that there is a universal right and wrong, and make laws accordingly.

“Luigi Novi: and that system usually calls maximizing happiness and minimizing harm.”

Based on what? There are terrorists out there, as I said before, that would call minimizing harm in direct conflict with maximizing happiness. The very idea of minimizing harm requires a definition of ‘harm,’ which is either objective or subjective. If it’s objective, then it’s an objective truth, and if it’s subjective then you moral system breaks down because you can do whatever you want to someone if you don’t consider it ‘harming them.’


“Luigi Novi: That we can come together by the thousands, millions and billions, and all agree to live by this system is what makes it anything other than “useless”, and all without a “higher” (what I take to mean spiritual/religious) moral system.”

A higher moral system, as I used the term, means one that’s beyond the individual, and thus beyond re-defining by the individual. Also, unless ‘might makes right,’ what do numbers have to do with it? As long as each of those millions and billions believe that their moral systems is theirs to defines and to re-define as they choose, it’s still a useless system.


“Zarm: Only anarchy can come from such a system!
Luigi Novi: Factually untrue, as demonstrated from the fact that atheists are not out rioting in the streets, murdering, robbing, raping, trying to overthrow the government, etc, and are even underrepresented in prisons.”

Okay, first off… under-represented in prisons? I’d like to see those statistics!

Second of all, there is no anarchy at the moment, true. But that is due in large part because we have objective laws which are NOT subjective to the individual, and threats of punishment to accompany and enforce them. It is the objective system that makes society viable, not the subjective.


“Luigi Novi: You’ll regret wasting it while you’re still alive and in the process of wasting it. I, for example, don’t want to believe in pseudoscientific ideas any more. Doing so is a waste of my time, whereas arguing against them is something I see as a great use of it. If I had to change this, I wouldn’t be happy.”

Interesting… but how can you define it as a great use of your time if your time and your life are meaningless? Also, if you bought into the model above (which as I stated earlier, is not exactly foolproof), then you’d be rather shortsighted in regretting the time spent in preparation before you reached the end and found out what you’d prepared for waiting for you or not anyway… :-)


“Luigi Novi: Those are his beliefs, not R’s, and he has no right forcing them on him.”

I objected to the idea that anything is being forced in the first place, and you have yet to defend that statement… please do so before continuing to use the propagandist term. How can religion be ‘forced’ on anyone? Brainwashing? Mind control?
I will admit that you can be forced to hear ABOUT religion, but it can’t be forced on you. (And by the by… about that priest… A: If someone were drowning, I would consider it the only responsible thing to do to throw them a life preserver whether they want it or not, and B: When was it ever made clear that the priest was aware of R’s distaste? From all I could see, the theoretical friend violated R’s wishes and got a priest, and the poor priest got beat up for just showing up when the friend asked him to! :-) Really though, I don’t care much about this theoretical situation except for two things: The hypocrisy in this system that allows you to live peacefully (unless someone comes and starts talking to you, a corporal-punishment offense!), and as an example of the annoyingly over-used term ‘forcing religion on someone,’ which is just plain silly. There is a distinct difference between ‘telling about’ ‘sharing with’ and ‘forcing on.’)


“Luigi Novi: It is that which suggest intolerance—for R’s right to atheism—not R’s physically violence against them, which is hardly something that someone dying should be accused of anyway.”

Wait, now in this theoretical situation you’re giving cart blanch (sp) for this theoretical beating- it’s not even wrong or intolerant at all?!? If so, I would call that Theoretical bigotry of the highest degree… and signs that a few people need anger management counseling. I’m certainly glad that this theoretical incident remains theoretical! :-)


“Zarm: Well, in this case it appears to be the friend concerned about your eternal well-being deciding that this constitutes help!
Luigi Novi: It isn’t the friend’s place to make that decision. It’s the dying person’s.”

Nonetheless, you asked who made the decision, not who should have made it. :-) I didn’t say anything about right, just about who made the decision. (And by the way, this ties into our topic nicely… it could indeed be help based on an objective moral system, whether R thought of it as such or not (like the life-preserver analogy.) On the other hand, only R can make the determination of what ‘help’ is in a subjective moral system. But fortunately, a subjective moral system doesn’t work. (And yes, I realize the assumptions made by that last statement… but I really doubt your ability to contradict it without using at least one statement of absolute truth… the very thing that makes moral relativism a self-contradictory, self-defeating concept.))


“Luigi Novi: You advocate having a priest show up uninvited at the deathbed of a dying person who has made their non-religious views and beliefs clear. I do not. ‘Nuf said.”

Yes, but you advocate physical violence as a response. Therefore, you ‘living in peace and harmony’ system is a load of bunk, and morally inferior in the area of ‘Doing good, as defined by not harming others.’ ‘Nuf said.


“Luigi Novi: Jesus admonished to recognize the Old Testament, which contains many principles and laws that contradict the laws of the New.”

But he also issued the New Covenant, overwriting those contradictory rules.


“And what ‘inconsistent, not so high ones’ are you referring to?

How'd you enjoy your Easter or Christmas ham, Zarm?”-ScottN

Actually, I hate ham, and didn't have it for either holiday in recent memory. And just today at church, where it was being served as part of a welcome luncheon for new members, I declined any. :-)
I’ll give you points for a witty response, though. (And after all, I do still love sausage, so I get the point.) However, in answer to this, I’d point to you to Peter’s vision in which God declares that he is making clean the food that was considered unclean… so this is not a contradiction.

So here's the thing: Much as I would like to be able to follow the discussion, I seriously cannot read more than about a screen full of text at a time without becoming totally, utterly lost. Is there any way I could convince anyone here to focus a little bit? Just everyone agree to take it slow? No?

I moved Anonguy’s last two posts to the Separation of Church and State boards.

Zarm Rkeeg: It is stating an absolute fact- that he IS a good, decent, ethical and moral person. Not that he MIGHT be, or that he is BASED ON HIS OWN OPINION, but simply that he IS.
Luigi Novi: First of all, he is not stating a fact, he is stating an opinion.

Second, the same question applies: in what way is that statement an “absolute”? What exactly is the definition of “absolute” that you’re using? You refer to his phrasing the statement in the certain terms of “is” instead of the probabilistic terms of “might be,” but what does that have to do with the definition of “absolute”? “Absolute” means “total” and/or “without exception.” What does the issue of certainty have to do with the issue of completion, totality or lack of exception?

Zarm: Yes… honestly, if you embrace moral relativism, you have no way of saying that helping someone is ‘good’ and hurting them is ‘bad,’ except for you… if they truly are undeniably good or bad, then they must apply to everybody, and therefore they must be absolute truths. And once again, I’m not saying that this is a bad definition of good and bad, just pointing out that once again, to make that assertion- as well as any for the ‘common good’ (presuming that that concept is not also subjective) requires a statement of absolute truth.
Luigi Novi: Maybe I’m missing your meaning here, but I don’t see how someone stating that they are a good person because they don’t hurt other people is a definition based solely on a moral system exclusive to just that one person, since it governs his interactions with other people, and most others would agree that it is correct, including yourself. An aversion to hurting others and tendency toward helping them seems to be a bit more universal than just R. His definition of a good person is based on fundamental principles that most everyone recognizes, particularly in Western culture.

Zarm: Sure, Pat Robertson and I may have our own separate views of Christ’s morality, but neither of us can speak for Him. Only He, and any words He wrote (or, as I’m sure you’d point out, had transcribed) can accurately speak for Him. The rest of us can guess, assume, or interpret as best we can, but that doesn’t make us right!
Luigi Novi: But haven’t you claimed that your interpretation of Christ is the only correct one? When Pat Robertson “speaks for” Christ, isn’t he pretty much doing the same thing? Isn’t any distinction between what the two of you are saying pretty much just semantics?

Zarm: Yes, R may be describing some CHRISTIANS, but not CHRISTIAN TEACHING.
Luigi Novi: And those Christians might disagree with you that their beliefs most certainly are Christian “teaching.” Thus, he didn’t necessarily slander what you believe, but what they believe (though I’m sure R disagrees with much of your own views of Christianity, such as your views on gay marriage).

Zarm: But in general, and even in R’s case should he ever shift his thinking, there’s nothing to prevent a shift based on random whim. If a moral relativist says “I’ve decided this part of my moral code is no longer wrong,” there is no reason to contradict him, since he dictates his own morals. A moral system is no good to guide you if it’s guidance comes directly from what you feel is right in the moment, because it’s not an objective guide to morality, it’s just an internal reinforcement of whatever you want to do in the first place!
Luigi Novi: Religion is not an objective guide either. It’s dictated by the personal experiences you had being raised or indoctrinated in that particular religion, which is different for people of each religion, and is therefore subjective. “Objective” and “subjective” refer to how predispositions can bias a person. A Christian is biased by vitue of his Christian upbringing, as are Jews by the Torah, Muslims by the Koran, and people of every other religion from their own.

I personally do not believe in moral relativism, as I think it’s bunk. But it’s silly to argue that R can change his moral views on a “whim,” any more than a theist can. Theists, after all, can shift their beliefs on what the Bible or Christ’s teachings “really” are. R bases his morality on what harms and doesn’t harm others. So long as that remains the criteria, and one upon which most people agree on (which I think they do), then it’s fairly objective—at least within the group that adheres to those criteria. It’s on how to best interpret those principles and criteria that disagreement comes.

I also do not believe in moral absolutism either, since you can just as easily ask a damning rhetorical question about that system too: Namely, Once it is determined that one has the absolute and final answers to moral questions, why be tolerant of those who refuse to accept the Truth?

Zarm: I disagree. If my morals come from the Bible, then they are not subjective to me.
Luigi Novi: A pretty funny statement, since the phrase “to me” is an announcement of its subjectivity! What exactly do you think the word “subjective” means? Subjective means “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.” The Bible is not external, as its validity is a question of belief that is only held by that belief’s adherents, and not fact. Ditto for the animistic beliefs of Native Americans, the teachings of Buddha, etc.

Zarm: But if you kill someone, that particular instance was either right or wrong. So while the general concept of ‘killing’ may be a right-or-wrong, that doesn’t change the fact the right and wrong still apply individually and unchangingly to each situation.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about a particular “someone.” We’re talking about the general statement “Killing is wrong.” Is that an absolute? No. Therefore, we have an example of a moral principle that is not absolute, but only generally true. The bottom line remains that “absolute” means without exceptions. Because most moral principles are only generally held to be true by most people, and have exceptions, then they are not absolute.

Zarm: Yes, but his definition of ‘reasonably’ is based on the positions he agrees with, therefore the term can be used to blanket a position as ‘unreasonable’ just because he doesn’t agree with it. For example: People that bomb abortions clinics I think can both agree are ‘unreasonable’ (and, downright evil).
Luigi Novi: You just admitted that your own definition of what is unreasonable is what you don’t “agree” with. Looks to me that your distinctions with respect to such terms follow pretty much the same criteria as R’s.

Zarm: But if I believe that the ten commandments should be allowed in front of courthouses for reasons of free speech, historical precedent, and equality with other religious displays allowed on the property, and R doesn’t, then all he needs to do is throw the phrase “Christian Taliban” onto that particular position, and suddenly it’s ‘unreasonable’ just because he said so! So the problem comes with the ability to define anyone and everyone he chooses to disagree with as a ‘Christian Taliban’ just because he disagrees with them!
Luigi Novi: It is not what he “chooses to disagree with,” as I mentioned above. It’s what he thinks of people who do not respect the equal rights of other people. It is ironic that you accuse him of using a term selectively, because you yourself are selectively defining his positions, and doing so inaccurately. He does not refer to proponents of the Commandments in courtrooms as such because he disagrees with them. He does so because those people do not respect fundamental principles of equality like Separation of Church and State. Turning this into “doesn’t agree with” is dishonest.

Luigi Novi: If the word extremist means anyone you don’t agree with, then does that mean that you don’t feel that it’s appropriate to call the bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers “extremists,” because I’m simply labeling them that because I “don’t agree” with them?

Zarm: No, I just object to the fact that if someone decides that a position I believe strongly is unappealing to them, they’ll just lump me into the same category as Bin Laden by calling me an ‘Extremist.’ Honestly, I’d rather just call Bin Laden and his ilk what they are: terrorists. ‘Religious Extremists’ implies that strongly adhering to a religious belief is automatically an evil thing if the belief isn’t popular
Luigi Novi: Again, why are you shifting the criteria R and I are talking about to the Straw Man ones that you’re talking about? Neither R nor I said anything about “strongly adhering to a religious belief.” You are deliberately watering down the criteria I offered for the definition of the term. Why is this? The term “extremists” is used here to refer to those who do not respect the rights of others, and try to violate those rights. Doesn’t that describe bin Laden? Are you saying that you don’t think bin Laden and the hijackers are extremists? Do you honestly believe that R or I think that they are extremists simply because “Oh, they just strongly adhere to a religious belief”? By describing them with such flowery, PC language, you’re watering down the term to mean just about anyone.

Zarm: Who are you are anyone else to declare that “I take my beliefs on Morality from Mr. Johnson’s ethics class in college, and you take your beliefs from the Bible, therefore my morality is sound to become law, and yours isn’t?” It is the height of arrogance, rudeness, and discrimination to suggest that my morals are inapplicable to life and law because of where I got them. I don’t care if your moral came from your parents, your Bible (or other holy book), your teacher, your observations, or the back of a cereal box (though I’d be rather curious to see THAT set of morals… :-) ), it doesn’t matter… your morals are your own, and you have every right to act on them, and to receive equal consideration in legal system for them. Otherwise, that’s discrimination on the basis of religion.
Luigi Novi: Nope. You’re deliberately ignoring what I wrote above about the Lemon Test, and how it is used to distinguish between “morals” that can properly become laws in the U.S. and those that can’t. If a law does not have a secular purpose, it should not become law. Who am I to say this? Well, I guess I’m someone who respects S.oC.a.S., and understands what the Lemon Test is.

Zarm: Isn’t the lack of any known ‘peer planets’ sufficient to say that we are without peers unless we discover otherwise?

Luigi Novi: No. It is enough to say that we don’t know one way or the other if we’re unique.”

Zarm: Fine, would a better way to say it be “To the best of human knowledge, we are unique?”
Luigi Novi: No. An accurate way to say would be “We do not know if we are unique.” Did I not make this clear enough? Did you not understand this point?

Zarm: The difference between the two is that the Christian ‘truths’ are designed as universal, while ‘individual morals’ are by their nature are by their nature individual, and therefore can’t apply individually.
Luigi Novi: Non-Christians don’t believe that Christian truths are designed to be universal, and even if they were, that doesn’t mean the “design” was successful. Waterworld and Ishtar were “designed” to be successful. But they weren’t, as people didn’t buy it. So too do non-Christians not buy into Christian truths.

Zarm: Who chooses to accept them is beside the point… one has the ability to apply universally, while the other can’t without violating itself.
Luigi Novi: As I explained above, I think the basis that R gave for his morality is universal. Again, don’t most people think that not hurting others and trying to help them when possible are universal?

Zarm: Second, the nature of the statement he made (the truth is in everybody as the source for any one truth) required that within everybody was the same truth- so even the nature of his belief (that everyone has their own truth) negates that concept, because not everybody shares ‘his truth,’ and therefore if we both have mutually exclusive ideas about the truth, the source of truth must be within one of us, but not the other- since both can’t coexist, being mutually exclusive.
Luigi Novi: Um……………………………………………..right.

Seriously, though, where did he say this? I tried using my browser’s Find feature to search for the phrase “the truth is in everybody as the source for any one truth”, and the first place it appears is in your post above. (I’m assuming there’s a paraphrase, but I’d like to read what he actually said.)

Zarm: Once again, you’re right, bad term. I should say that Christians have been at the forefront, and, as I just spent so much time arguing, they are not the same as Christianity.
Luigi Novi: Okay. I’m sure many of the seminal scientists in history were Christians, but how exactly is that relevant to anything we’re discussing here? Many were not Christians, after all. What’s your point?

Zarm: However, I would ask, how has Christianity been able to hinder Scientific Methods? I think the initial accusation was flawed. However, Christians would have the capability to do so, and, with the exception of the unfortunate times with Galileo and Copernicus and that unfortunate time, have not done so, but instead have often become prominent scientists. So the suggestion that Christianity creates anti-science individuals is untrue. (If that was, indeed, the intent of the original accusation.)
Luigi Novi: Why is Galileo being excepted? Is pointing that out “not allowed,” or something?

And if you want examples other than him, there’s Giordano Bruno, there’s the manner in which anesthesia was opposed because the Bible prescribes women to suffer pain in childbirth, there’s the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opposition some have to genetic engineering such as cloning etc.

Christianity is not the source of all anti-science. The main source, I think, is ignorance of science resulting from poor science education. Christianity is simply a contributing factor to some of it.

Zarm: But by using that term on whatever group he selects, he locks the argument into whatever his definitions of ‘forcing religion on others’ (which, as I said before, is an utterly ridiculous concept anyway) and ‘taking away rights.’
Luigi Novi: What do you mean “his definitions”? There aren’t any “his definitions.” Those against gay-marriage generally oppose it on religious grounds, as do those who try to push creationism in public science classrooms, who don’t respect SoCaS, and so forth. These examples hardly make the term arbitrary, which is what the phrase “whatever groups he selects” sounds like. I’m sorry you think the case you made for how anti-gay marriage opponents are not doing this, but obviously those are his beliefs, Zarm.

Zarm: No, I don’t believe that it does give contradictory ‘cues,’…
Luigi Novi: I don’t care. You told me to take my cue from the Bible. I say, I don’t like those cues, so no.

Zarm: See, that’s the problem with ‘individual morality.’ If there’s an objective morality, then there’s an unyielding guideline on what’s right and wrong, no matter how you may ‘feel about it.’
Luigi Novi: Again, whether a guidelines is unyielding does not make it objective. Those two words simply do not mean the same thing. And I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “that’s the problem with individual morality,” since you made this in response to my statement that I’m not interested in taking my cue from the Bible. That’s not merely “individual.” It’s something that lots of people have chosen, and for logical reasons.

Zarm: Yes, Luigi, I do. Being ignorant of the basic of Logical Fallacies in the past was enough for me. And I submit that it is what’s happening here: R makes an untrue statement of what Christianity is or says, based on his own beliefs and not what Christianity says or teaches, and then attacks or disparages it.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s not quite what a Straw Man is.

Zarm: But R also said, “the christian god is an invention of humanity.”
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I missed that.

Zarm: No it isn’t. It is, by it’s nature, only applicable to him. It’s based off of a system that society deems acceptable, but, in the end, it’s still just his system.
Luigi Novi: That’s a contradiction.

Zarm: Based on what?
Luigi Novi: What do you mean “based on what”? That is the basis.

Zarm: There are terrorists out there, as I said before, that would call minimizing harm in direct conflict with maximizing happiness.
Luigi Novi: And we would oppose them. For the most part, I think most of human culture sides with our view, so I think we’re winning, wouldn’t you say?

Zarm: The very idea of minimizing harm requires a definition of ‘harm,’ which is either objective or subjective.
Luigi Novi: Harm is not subjective. There are objective standards for when you violate someone’s rights or harm them physically. You’re saying that if you were standing at Ground Zero after 9/11, and saw someone’s hand on the ground, that the issue of whether that guy was harmed would be subjective?

Zarm: A higher moral system, as I used the term, means one that’s beyond the individual, and thus beyond re-defining by the individual. Also, unless ‘might makes right,’ what do numbers have to do with it? As long as each of those millions and billions believe that their moral systems is theirs to defines and to re-define as they choose, it’s still a useless system.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps I’m still not getting you. Most of those billions believe the same basic things—the “broad strokes”, that is—of right and wrong, especially in Western culture. Thus, those principles are not useless. We evolved basic principles on which to base right and wrong, and they seem to mostly work well: Basically, the principles upon which secular morality can be based are The Ask First Principle, the Happiness Principle, The Liberty Principle, and the Moderation Principle.

Zarm: Okay, first off… under-represented in prisons? I’d like to see those statistics!
Luigi Novi: You’re saying you’re actually surprised to hear that? Are you genuinely under the impression that nontheists are more lawless than theists????

But if you want the statistics, here they are: Atheists account for about 8-16% of the total population, but only 0.21% of the prison population (0.21%).

Zarm: Second of all, there is no anarchy at the moment, true. But that is due in large part because we have objective laws which are NOT subjective to the individual, and threats of punishment to accompany and enforce them. It is the objective system that makes society viable, not the subjective.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about objectivity vs. subjectivity here. We’re talking about whether atheism leads to anarchy. It does not. It is specious to argue that people are inherently lawless simply because they don’t believe in your god, and since I’m an agnostic, it’s certainly far more insulting than anything you accused R of. You are basically arguing that I would rob, murder, rape and whatever else so long as I was in a situation where I thought I could get away with it, as in post-Katrina New Orleans, or in some isolated geographic area where I had the opportunity to victimize someone. You’re wrong. People generally do not like to hurt one another, and this is the case regardless of whether religion existed or not, and indeed exists in societies that have not had the Bible.

Zarm: Interesting… but how can you define it as a great use of your time if your time and your life are meaningless?
Luigi Novi: My time and my life are not meaningless. Those are your words, not mine. But hey, thanks for insulting me.

Zarm: Also, if you bought into the model above (which as I stated earlier, is not exactly foolproof), then you’d be rather shortsighted in regretting the time spent in preparation before you reached the end and found out what you’d prepared for waiting for you or not anyway.
Luigi Novi: In other words, anyone who doesn’t have your religious beliefs is shortsighted. Me, I just thought I had different beliefs from you, and the right to make my own choices in life as to how to devote my time and energy. Guess that doesn’t fit into your worldview.

Zarm: I objected to the idea that anything is being forced in the first place, and you have yet to defend that statement… please do so before continuing to use the propagandist term. How can religion be ‘forced’ on anyone? Brainwashing? Mind control? I will admit that you can be forced to hear ABOUT religion, but it can’t be forced on you.
Luigi Novi: And? What’s your point? You admit that something is being “forced” on someone who has made it clear that they don’t want it, and of all times, when he is on his deathbed. There’s nothing “propagandist” about it, because you yourself admit that it is accurate! You do not have the right to force any aspect of religion on anyone ever, period. To do so, especially when someone is on their deathbed, and has made it clear they want to be left alone in peace is morally indefensible and utterly repugnant.

Zarm: If someone were drowning, I would consider it the only responsible thing to do to throw them a life preserver whether they want it or not…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about someone drowning. We’re talking about a non-believer who is dying and does not want anyone cramming religion down his throat. Forcing your religious views on someone has nothing to do with and is not comparable to saving someone’s life. Saving someone’s life is not a matter of individual belief. No one believes that drowning is a good thing, or that you will not die if you drown. To compare the very personal nature of individual spiritual beliefs to something like drowning is profoundly dishonest. Funny how you so strenuously object to “Christian Taliban” but advocate forcing religion on someone (while arguing simultaneously that there both is and isn’t “forcing”).

Zarm: When was it ever made clear that the priest was aware of R’s distaste? From all I could see, the theoretical friend violated R’s wishes and got a priest, and the poor priest got beat up for just showing up when the friend asked him to!
Luigi Novi: The friend should’ve known, and R could’ve made his wishes known to the priest when the priest showed up. If the priest ignored him then he was wrong.

Zarm: Nonetheless, you asked who made the decision, not who should have made it.
Luigi Novi: No, I asked “Who are you or some priest to make the decision about someone else’s “soul”, or what constitutes “help”?”.

Zarm: Yes, but you advocate physical violence as a response. Therefore, you ‘living in peace and harmony’ system is a load of bunk, and morally inferior in the area of ‘Doing good, as defined by not harming others.’
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that I have not advocated any such thing (only stated the wrongness of what the “friend” and the priest were doing), forcing religion on someone is not “living in peace or harmony”, nor “doing good.” It is your advocacy of having a priest do this that is “bunk.”

Zarm: But he also issued the New Covenant, overwriting those contradictory rules.
Luigi Novi: Then why did he admonish to adhere to the OT? And just out of curiosity, can you point to where in the Bible it is made clear that the OT was overridden?

Matt, were you talking about mine and Zarm’s posts, or Anonguy’s? Or both?

Onto Board 2.