A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

Sam Vimes

A good way to illustrate my point is the Jefferson Bible.

It's the bible with all the supernatural elements taken out and the lessons left intact. In that form it is a philosophical document like any other that can be accepted or rejected based on the merit of the argument but when you say that this philosophical document was given to us by an omnipotent being and that it is perfect, you are giving authority to the document that goes beyond the merits of the arguments being made. Either consciously or subconsciously, you don't say "this argument should be accepted because x, y and z", you say "it should be accepted because it comes from God". x, y and z backing it up would be a bonus but they are not necessary because it comes from God.

And until the existence of god, the existence of the extra authority being put behind these arguments can be verified, you run a risk by accepting them. All of your thought processes are being coloured by something which cannot be shown to be true.

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Something's either true or it's not.

True. But true to the individual. Your truth and mine are different. Neither is wrong or right.

But if you base your reasoning on the presence of evidence, then there must be complete evidence in order to substantiate it. Otherwise it's conjecture.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything other than the existence of our own consciousness.

Exactly.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus who lived 2000 years ago and had some followers and presented me a book as evidence I'd probably accept it unless I had some compelling evidence to the contrary but if they want to tell me that he performed miracles and raised from the dead and that I should accept him as my saviour they're going to need a lot more than an old book. A good start would be proving that such things are even possible.

OK so it's down to degrees of belief, and what's reasonable to you?

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

True. But true to the individual. Your truth and mine are different. Neither is wrong or right.

There are cases where is no definite right or wrong but equally there are a lot of cases where someone is definitely wrong.

togster wrote: »

But if you base your reasoning on the presence of evidence, then there must be complete evidence in order to substantiate it. Otherwise it's conjecture.

No there really doesn't. You can't run your life insisting that everything be 100% proven to you personally before you accept it, for a lot of things it has be to enough that the evidence exists. For example our model of the atom might be slightly wrong and there are things we don't fully understand such as quantum tunnelling in transistors but the model is close enough that it has allowed us to develop electronics. And the force of gravity cannot be fully explained but I'm not going to be jumping off a cliff any time soon

togster wrote: »

OK so it's down to degrees of belief, and what's reasonable to you?

That depends on the claim being made. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence and not so remarkable claims don't. For example if your wife came home and said she ran into your friend and was chatting to him you wouldn't ask her to prove it but if your friend had died last week you'd have a few more questions for her

CerebralCortex

togster wrote: »

True. But true to the individual. Your truth and mine are different. Neither is wrong or right....

Crap alert.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Secondary data is still data. It could still be considered valid but it's validity should be investigated.

Agreed but you get my point that a source can be biased in social sciences

But how do you weigh up a religious argument? They're all based on an unprovable hypothesis. As I said earlier, something shouldn't automatically be rejected just because it comes from a religion but if the argument stands on its own merits then the fact that it is religious is incidental. What do you do, for example, when two religions have claims to the holy land based on their beliefs, neither of which can be verified?

I probably weigh them up the same way you do. Then I only have one religous belief.

And that is a problem. Your political beliefs are based on reasoning and personal experience but your religious beliefs depend heavily on the authority of the source, an authority that cannot be verified. Basically, you rejected something just because it came from Richard Dawkins so you should understand the problems of accepting something just because it comes from someone who may not even exist.

My religous beliefs will influence my moral and ethical outlook nothing more.

I believe in personal freedom and free will within the law too. I see nothing wrong with that or inconsistant.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's invalid to operate on the assumption that your particular version of god exists when it is currently impossible to verify that.

It means in your scientific world you cant rationalise it so it doesnt work for you.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Agreed but you get my point that a source can be biased in social sciences

Yeah sources can be biased in lots of things. That doesn't excuse the bias of religious sources of the lack of validity of religious sources.

CDfm wrote: »

I probably weigh them up the same way you do. Then I only have one religous belief.

My religous beliefs will influence my moral and ethical outlook nothing more.

The problem is that the moral authority of the bible is entirely dependent on the existence of the god that supposedly gave it to us. Islam says that it's immoral for women to show themselves and that they should be subservient to men. Who's to say they're wrong? Their moral beliefs come from a perfect higher power after all. More importantly, who's to say they're right when they make women wear these clothes? There is no rational reason for many moral rules in religion such as the one saying gayness is immoral but they are accepted because they come from god.

CDfm wrote: »

It means in your scientific world you cant rationalise it so it doesnt work for you.

Exactly. It's irrational and therefore cannot be used to make rational decisions

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can't run your life insisting that everything be 100% proven to you personally before you accept it

Exactly my point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That depends on the claim being made.

That depends on the claim being made to you.

Can you not see that with all the variables including our differeing conciousnesses, that our percpetions will be different?

And if that is the case, that our percieved realities will be different. Why is yours right and mine wrong?

I say neither is right/wrong tbh.

togster

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Crap alert.

Did i use too many big words?

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

That depends on the claim being made to you.

Can you not see that with all the variables including our differeing conciousnesses, that our percpetions will be different?

And if that is the case, that our percieved realities will be different. Why is yours right and mine wrong?

I say neither is right/wrong tbh.

It's a nice idea but in reality if you say the sky is green and I say it's blue, one of us is right and the other one is wrong. There are a lot of things that are subjective but also a lot of things that aren't. As far as I'm concerned "real to me" means "I have no evidence of what I'm saying but I really want to believe it so I'm just going to go ahead and believe it anyway".

stevejazzx

togster wrote: »

OK so it's down to degrees of belief, and what's reasonable to you?

Unless you're after some kind of philosophical argument then what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me. It's not reasonable to believe in Jesus based on evidence.

Now if you want to include 'personal' evidence than that's fine as long as you accept that this essentially equates belief in Jesus with belief in Aliens. The tetsable quantifiable evidence for Jesus and Aliens is slim so belief in either of them is going to be based more on evidence which cannot be quantified, tested etc. which essentially invalidates them as logical beliefs even if a person takes it upon themselves to apply their own personal bias in terms of what evidence should be accepted, psychological or otherwise.

This is of course illogical becasue we don't apply personal bias to belief in say Aeroplanes for example or the physics of flight, we know that based on the testable, quantifiable, observable evidence that such things work.

Maybe you'll say that love is the same - we believe in it without evidence but that's a fallacy because relationships in themselves are valuable evidence. The only relationship one can have with God is psychological so there's nothing to differeniate it from a relationship with an imaginary friend.

Now the only remaining argument is that relaity is an illusion!! (it might just well be) that's fine then, everything is eqully invlaid including religion but I don't see what can be gained from this approach. The best approach IMO is to work to the irregularities of the human belief and abide by generally agreed principals of logic.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

It irritates the hell out of me when I read PDN etc. attributing atheism to the collapse of the moral fabric in society and citing the Soviet Union, China etc. as examples.

I think the argument that the moderately religious are partly responsible for atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists because the sheer amount of them make religion socially acceptable and paves the way for these extremists to rise to prominence is tenuous at best. It's also not an argument that's going to appeal to many religious people.

Excellent point.


Hurin; you are responsible for Stalins purges as a Labour Voter - now fess up - ya know ya wanna:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah sources can be biased in lots of things. That doesn't excuse the bias of religious sources of the lack of validity of religious sources.

Agreed

The problem is that the moral authority of the bible is entirely dependent on the existence of the god that supposedly gave it to us. Islam says that it's immoral for women to show themselves and that they should be subservient to men. Who's to say they're wrong? Their moral beliefs come from a perfect higher power after all. More importantly, who's to say they're right when they make women wear these clothes? There is no rational reason for many moral rules in religion such as the one saying gayness is immoral but they are accepted because they come from god.

Well by my beliefs I have to be tolerant and respectful of others beliefs - even yours.

Without getting all theological on it I have often posted on the Christian threads on that.

Lots of philosophy and ethics are derived from religious arguments too and many atheists have views a lot more conservative than many Christians I know.

Exactly. It's irrational and therefore cannot be used to make rational decisions

You are so certain its almost dogmatic.

So is what music you like, favorite food , colour preference, fave actress model etc subjective and irrational..
Some matters are subjective.

You have cited the Jefferson Bible and you don't believe in God. Some believers would question where you get the basis for your personal morality from - not me BTW.

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a nice idea but in reality if you say the sky is green and I say it's blue, one of us is right and the other one is wrong.

I disagree but anyway...
So are you saying we all interpret the colour blue in the same way?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are a lot of things that are subjective but also a lot of things that aren't.

In your opinion

I think everything is subjective or at least open to personal interpretation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned "real to me" means "I have no evidence of what I'm saying but I really want to believe it so I'm just going to go ahead and believe it anyway".

Well you would think this if you do not think we are capable of different perception---->opinion

---

>reality.

I don't think we are going to agree and that's cool, i didn't think we would

CDfm

stevejazzx wrote: »

Unless you're after some kind of philosophical argument then what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me......The tetsable quantifiable evidence for Jesus and Aliens is slim so belief in either of them is going to be based more on evidence which cannot be quantified, tested etc. which essentially invalidates them as logical beliefs .....The best approach IMO is to work to the irregularities of the human belief and abide by generally agreed principals of logic.

Take over the bridge Mr Spock;)

stevejazzx

CDfm wrote: »

Take over the bridge Mr Spock;)

? ? ?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Lots of philosophy and ethics are derived from religious arguments too and many atheists have views a lot more conservative than many Christians I know.

I'm sure lots of atheists have more conservative views than some christians. I wouldn't agree though that a lot of ethics are derived from religion, as an atheist I think the ethics existed before the religion and were included to give it authority.

What's your point? I don't see what it has to do with what I'm saying.

CDfm wrote: »

You are so certain its almost dogmatic.

So is what music you like, favorite food , colour preference etc.
Some matters are subjective.

You have cited the Jefferson Bible and you don't believe in God. Some believers would question where you get the basis for your personal morality from - not me BTW.

What I am certain about is that the Christian God's has not been proven. That is a fact so I am perfectly entitled to be dogmatic about it. What I am also certain about is that treating something as if it has been proven when it has not is irrational and carries inherent risks.

Some matters are subjective such as music and food but the existence of the christian god is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn't. This is not a case where there is no right or wrong. There is a very definite right and wrong and if you are basing your morality on the idea that it came from an omnipotent being you are taking the risk that that being does not exist and the morality it asserts as correct is not.

Often this doesn't matter because things stand on their own merits as moral without requiring that God be invoked. The problem comes in with things like saying gayness is immoral. I don't think it is because it hurts no one but your religion instructs you that it is. There is a conflict and you have to decide if you're going to take the rational approach that it's ok because it hurts no one or overrule rationality and accept your religion's version. That's fine if your God exists but until we know for sure you're taking a risk

togster wrote: »

I disagree but anyway...
So are you saying we all interpret the colour blue in the same way?

We don't have to interpret the colour blue in the same way. I might see it as what you see as green but I can still discern that it is the colour known as blue. The only time when that will change is when a colour blind person is involved. I'm colour blind so I see green as red and red as red. If I saw green as red and red as green there would be no problem but because I see both as the same colour, I will always bow to someone else's knowledge in that area.

togster wrote: »

In your opinion

I think everything is subjective or at least open to personal interpretation.

You can define a cup of coffee as a block of cheese if you want because you have the right to freedom of speech but in many cases you will most definitely be wrong on all but an impractical philosophical level.

CDfm

stevejazzx wrote: »

? ? ?

Ya wouldnt get it -its not rational:D

togster

stevejazzx wrote: »

Now if you want to include 'personal' evidence than that's fine

Im not including evidence for the exsistance of anything. I'm not debating the exsistance of jesus.

I'm debating the exsistance of anything as a refelction of an individuals perception.

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's not reasonable to believe in Jesus based on evidence.

In your opinion.

stevejazzx wrote: »

this essentially equates belief in Jesus with belief in Aliens.

In your opinion

stevejazzx wrote: »

The tetsable quantifiable evidence for Jesus and Aliens is slim

Slim but it exsists?

stevejazzx wrote: »

which essentially invalidates them as logical beliefs even if a person takes it upon themselves to apply their own personal bias in terms of what evidence should be accepted, psychological or otherwise.

Why would it invalidate them as logical beliefs? To you yes, but not to others.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Maybe you'll say that love is the same - we believe in it without evidence but that's a fallacy because relationships in themselves are valuable evidence.

How many people are in relationships even though they are not in love?

A relationship does not always equal love.

People can be in love and not be in a relationship woth each other.

So that argument is seriously flawed.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The only relationship one can have with God is psychological so there's nothing to differeniate it from a relationship with an imaginary friend.

If you believe that the presence of a relationship proves love then the above statement is difficult to take seriously.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Now the only remaining argument is that relaity is an illusion!! (it might just well be) that's fine then

Why would reality be an illusion?

I never said it was, just that we have different realities, with a common factor.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't see what can be gained from this approach.

Either do I

stevejazzx wrote: »

The best approach IMO is to work to the irregularities of the human belief and abide by generally agreed principals of logic.

Generally agreed principals of logic? Who generally agrees them?

If they are general as you put it, then they are subjective.

A group with a common opinion? Sounds much like religion to me tbh

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We don't have to interpret the colour blue in the same way.

So expand the reasoning and you have my point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only time when that will change is when a colour blind person is involved. I'm colour blind so I see green as red and red as red. If I saw green as red and red as green there would be no problem but because I see both as the same colour, I will always bow to someone else's knowledge in that area.

That's not what i mean. All things being equal (excluding conciousness) peoples perceptions are different.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

impractical philosophical level.

So is all philosophy impractical?

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

So is all philosophy impractical?

No the particular part of philosophy that you are employing is impractical

togster wrote: »

stevejazzx wrote:

It's not reasonable to believe in Jesus based on evidence.

In your opinion.

If it was reasonable to believe in Jesus based on evidence then the resurrection would be taught in history class. Seriously mate I know what you're saying but it's a theoretical philosophical argument and if we ran the world based on it we'd still be living in tress poking berries up our noses. Things can be shown to be true to the best of human ability, that's all we can do. The fact that we cannot prove anything 100% does not mean that something with 2% probability should be considered as valid as something with 99% probability

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure lots of atheists have more conservative views than some christians. I wouldn't agree though that a lot of ethics are derived from religion, as an atheist I think the ethics existed before the religion and were included to give it authority.

Maybe so

What's your point? I don't see what it has to do with what I'm saying.

For you morals, ethics and religion are mutually exclusive.

What I am certain about is that the Christian God's has not been proven. That is a fact so I am perfectly entitled to be dogmatic about it. What I am also certain about is that treating something as if it has been proven when it has not is irrational and carries inherent risks.

The fact is its not testable scientifically and thats the bit you are sure about by your logic.

Some matters are subjective such as music and food but the existence of the christian god is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn't. This is not a case where there is no right or wrong. There is a very definite right and wrong and if you are basing your morality on the idea that it came from an omnipotent being you are taking the risk that that being does not exist and the morality it asserts as correct is not.

Some issues transend religious belief wouldnt you say.

Often this doesn't matter because things stand on their own merits as moral without requiring that God be invoked. The problem comes in with things like saying gayness is immoral. I don't think it is because it hurts no one but your religion instructs you that it is. There is a conflict and you have to decide if you're going to take the rational approach that it's ok because it hurts no one or overrule rationality and accept your religion's version. That's fine if your God exists but until we know for sure you're taking a risk

I agree with you here and an individuals sexual orientation doesn't bother me. I dont judge.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

For you morals, ethics and religion are mutually exclusive.

No they're not. As I've said several times, something shouldn't be rejected just because its in a religion, the religion might have a lot of good things in it. The problem is when an unproven hypothesis is used to fallaciously add weight to a religious claim.

Killing is wrong because it deprives someone of their life and it deprives the family and friends of the victim. Most importantly there is a victim. Killing is objectively wrong and I don't need a religion to tell me that but just because a religion says killing is wrong doesn't mean it's ok either.

Whereas gayness is not necessarily wrong because there is no victim. In order to believe that gayness is wrong you have to invoke the argument "it's wrong because god says so". You must invoke an unproven hypothesis to make your case and so you are taking the risk that the hypothesis is wrong.

CDfm wrote: »

The fact is its not testable scientifically and thats the bit you are sure about by your logic.

Not necessarily scientifically, it's not testable in any way whatsoever. It's an unproven hypothesis which is routinely treated as being proven to the point where things that have actually been proven get rejected.

CDfm wrote: »

Some issues transend religious belief wouldnt you say.

Yes I would. What's your point?

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with you here and an individuals sexual orientation doesn't bother me. I dont judge.

But your religion says you should. Or doesn't depending where you look. It definitely tells you that these acts are immoral so why do you not think they are?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Another example from the past few days is that Jakkass does not believe that gayness is biologically determined, he thinks it's a choice. That belief goes heavily against the available evidence but we would have to provide absolute proof to the contrary before he would change his mind (and even then it would be hit and miss) because he has made his decision based on the assumption that his version of god exists, an assumption which we as a race are not in a position to make.

It's especially dangerous when you hold onto your unsubstantiated beliefs over far more concrete evidence to the contrary. Just look at creationists for another perfect example

Sorry, who was the one who was making assumptions on that thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60760377&postcount=408

There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biologically predetermined, as such I will hold my view that we really don't know. It's something that people can theorise upon.

Previous to that point, I was asked if homosexuality is a choice. I said I am not going to assume:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60760235&postcount=404

In this post. I put forward the view that we do not know:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60759707&postcount=389

Likewise in this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60760034&postcount=397

In this post, here, I personally said that I did not believe that homosexuality was biologically predetermined:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60758850&postcount=381

However, this is just as much a belief as yours in that it is biologically predetermined. Interesting how one can spin anothers posts so easily.

Continuing on, I said it was best if we did not impose human standards when observing the sexual practices of the animal world as human behaviour well clearly differs from others. I provided an example where homosexual activity in beetles was found to give a reproductive edge when they mated with females:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60760603&postcount=415

I didn't rule out that I could be incorrect, nor did I rule out that it could also be down to social factors or other things.

Continue discussing however, it's been interesting so far. I merely needed to clear this up.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In this post, here, I personally said that I did not believe that homosexuality was biologically predetermined:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60758850&postcount=381

However, this is just as much a belief as yours in that it is biologically predetermined. Interesting how one can spin anothers posts so easily.

I know you didn't state your belief as 100% fact, that doesn't change my point in any way. All of the evidence is currently pointing towards the idea that it is biologically predetermined and not one piece of evidence is pointing towards it being a choice but none of this evidence trumps your unsubstantiated and unproven book. It is held as the highest standard of evidence inappropriately because it has not been shown to be true with anywhere near the confidence of the contradictory evidence

You will take the bible's version unless 100% proven otherwise. That is not a rational approach until the bible has been 100% proven

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No the particular part of philosophy that you are employing is impractical

I don't agree, but anyway...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seriously mate I know what you're saying but it's a theoretical philosophical argument and if we ran the world based on it we'd still be living in tress poking berries up our noses.

Your idea of progress and mine are different then.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Things can be shown to be true to the best of human ability, that's all we can do. The fact that we cannot prove anything 100% does not mean that something with 2% probability should be considered as valid as something with 99% probability

I don't agree but we will never agree.

Look, i don't believe in a guy in the sky, judging us to hell and heaven.

I think religion has messed with the original teachings of many great teachers.

I am not here to defend religions. I am here to defend my right to think and be myself if you get my point.

I think god is life. I also know that when we stop to judge things and label we see things for what they really are. Life is beautiful and even calling it so does not do it justice.

I'm not here to defend or promote anything, just that perhaps there is a different way of looking at things, when we let go of ideals and belief systems.

I think life has been analyzed to death and we cannot actually see how truly splendid the balance can be.

Im out. BTW it was a pleasure

stevejazzx

togster wrote: »

Im not including evidence for the exsistance of anything. I'm not debating the exsistance of jesus.

I'm debating the exsistance of anything as a refelction of an individuals perception.



In your opinion.

Very helpful comeback, I shall go away and reconstruct my argument.

togster wrote:

In your opinion

Yeah..are you debating or what? What's the point of this "in your opinon" stuff - you're like a kid who answers everything with 'why'.

togster wrote:

Slim but it exsists?

are you actually reading the replies?

togster wrote:

Why would it invalidate them as logical beliefs? To you yes, but not to others.

Answer is in my post.

togster wrote:

How many people are in relationships even though they are not in love?

Truly the worst replies I have ever experienced. Where did I say that being in a relationship meant they were in love. I said, and it's very very simple, that relationships themselves offer evidence of love as a construct. Some relationships are bad yes, doesn't chnage anything where the relationships are good.

togster wrote:

A relationship does not always equal love.

Yes. I shouldn't of claimed that it did - oh wait a minute I didn't !!!

togster wrote:

People can be in love and not be in a relationship woth each other.

Relationships themselves are just one example of where we might extrapolate evidence of love.

togster wrote:

So that argument is seriously flawed.

If Ithought that you had even grasped about 10% of my argument or even it's general direction I might take that comment a little more seriously. You style of argument (or rather lack thereof) is seriously flawed.

togster wrote:

If you believe that the presence of a relationship proves love then the above statement is difficult to take seriously.

Wow. You really latched onto something didn't you. It's a shame that's it's not representative of anything I was talking about.

togster wrote:

Why would reality be an illusion?

Many reasons, seeing as you cannot grasp basic arguments I don't think you're quite ready to discuss the origins of matter and consciousness. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong.

togster wrote:

I never said it was, just that we have different realities, with a common factor.

I never said you said it was. I was talking possible remaining arguments. The 'you' was plural as in people.

togster wrote:

Generally agreed principals of logic? Who generally agrees them?

If they are general as you put it, then they are subjective.

A group with a common opinion? Sounds much like religion to me tbh

How did get to work today? Drive? Public transport? What will eat for for lunch? What are you using to get internet access? All of these things are agreed principals which all came from logical systems based on real quantifiable evidence. Some things are real and agreed some things are not, the only disagreement someone could have with this is a philisophical one.

stevejazzx

CDfm wrote: »

Ya wouldnt get it -its not rational:D

I thought there was another level beyond the Spock thing that I was missing...get you now, I tihnk.

togster

stevejazzx wrote: »

Very helpful comeback, I shall go away and reconstruct my argument.

You came in at the end of a discussion i had with Sam Vines. So really the debate was between me and him.

By saying it was your opinion, i simply meant that that is your perception of reality, not mine or someone elses.

Iwasn't being condescending....honest

stevejazzx wrote: »

What's the point of this "in your opinon" stuff -

See above. And if you want please read through the debate i had with Sam.

stevejazzx wrote: »

you're like a kid who answers everything with 'why'.

Maybe that's not such a bad time. I had a great time as a kid asking why.

stevejazzx wrote: »

are you actually reading the replies?

Again you came in on the tail end of a debate with Sam. I was reading his replies.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Truly the worst replies I have ever experienced.

In your opinion :)

stevejazzx wrote: »

I said, and it's very very simple, that relationships themselves offer evidence of love as a construct. Some relationships are bad yes, doesn't chnage anything where the relationships are good.

Yes.

But the absence of relationship be used as evidence that love also exsists.

stevejazzx wrote: »

If Ithought that you had even grasped about 10% of my argument or even it's general direction I might take that comment a little more seriously. You style of argument (or rather lack thereof) is seriously flawed.

Why so bitter?

I grasped your argument in it's entirety.

It's not that complicated.

Try and grasp mine.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Many reasons, seeing as you cannot grasp basic arguments I don't think you're quite ready to discuss the origins of matter and consciousness. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong.

I'm more than ready, but i'll save if for someone, who comes with an open mind and calm demeanour.

Peace.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is when an unproven hypothesis is used to fallaciously add weight to a religious claim.

You cant test it so you reject it.

Killing is wrong because it deprives someone of their life and it deprives the family and friends of the victim. Most importantly there is a victim. Killing is objectively wrong and I don't need a religion to tell me that but just because a religion says killing is wrong doesn't mean it's ok either.

Well we agree there but would you agree if I said executions can be justified for the common good?

Whereas gayness is not necessarily wrong because there is no victim. In order to believe that gayness is wrong you have to invoke the argument "it's wrong because god says so". You must invoke an unproven hypothesis to make your case and so you are taking the risk that the hypothesis is wrong.

What may be morally wrong in accordance with a Churchs teaching doesnt make it a crime. Its not for me to judge someone else.

Not necessarily scientifically, it's not testable in any way whatsoever. It's an unproven hypothesis which is routinely treated as being proven to the point where things that have actually been proven get rejected.

Well you dont believe the concept so you reject it.

Yes I would. What's your point?

Just that ideas on morallity evolve and that you accept many of the same things that I do.

But your religion says you should. Or doesn't depending where you look. It definitely tells you that these acts are immoral so why do you not think they are?

My religion tells me I shouldnt judge the person in moral issues and being gay would be one of those areas.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

You cant test it so you reject it.

You're absolutely right but I can't accept it either, which is the point I'm making. It can play no part in my decision making process until it is either shown to be true or false with a high degree of certainty.

CDfm wrote: »

Well we agree there but would you agree if I said executions can be justified for the common good?

No I wouldn't. The threat of the death penalty has never been shown to have an effect on crime rates

CDfm wrote: »

Well you dont believe the concept so you reject it.

I don't reject it, that implies I have completely discounted the possibility. I just don't accept it until such time as it can be shown to be true, just like any other unfounded claim.

CDfm wrote: »

Just that ideas on morallity evolve and that you accept many of the same things that I do.

I'm not contesting that. But your morality has evolved despite your religion. You have learned to overrule certain parts of it such as the multiple instances where it describes homosexuality as immoral.

CDfm wrote: »

What may be morally wrong in accordance with a Churchs teaching doesnt make it a crime. Its not for me to judge someone else.

My religion tells me I shouldnt judge the person in moral issues and being gay would be one of those areas.

What do you mean by judge? I know it says you shouldn't judge but it also unequivocally states that homosexuality and a large number of other things are immoral.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're absolutely right but I can't accept it either, which is the point I'm making. It can play no part in my decision making process until it is either shown to be true or false with a high degree of certainty.

Im absolutely fine with that.Ya Doubting Thomas you.:)

Its simple you dont believe in God.

No I wouldn't. The threat of the death penalty has never been shown to have an effect on crime rates

Protecting its citizens - Im fine with that.I can see circumstances where it needs to be considered.

I don't reject it, that implies I have completely discounted the possibility. I just don't accept it until such time as it can be shown to be true, just like any other unfounded claim.

But you dont believe it is possible to prove. Nice one;)

I'm not contesting that. But your morality has evolved despite your religion. You have learned to overrule certain parts of it such as the multiple instances where it describes homosexuality as immoral.

I havent overruled anything as I was never taught to be prejudiced against or condemn homosexuals.

What do you mean by judge? I know it says you shouldn't judge but it also unequivocally states that homosexuality and a large number of other things are immoral.

The Bible says we shouldnt judge so in general we dont. You dont have to be religious to be prejudiced against homosexuals. Homophobia exists all by itself. I believe Viking society was anti homosexual and discri9minated against it.