Astralinre

Exactly - in your opinion. In your opinion, your justification is better than theirs. In their opinion, their justification is better than yours. If everything is subjective, who wins?

So you believe in forcing your views on other people, correct?

No, he doesn't believe in forcing people to do anything. He believes the government should make laws based upon absolute right and wrong. People are free to disagree with those absolute morals, but they are in the wrong. No one is being forced to follow such morals. They are free to disagree, break the law, and face the consequences. Of course it would be better for them if they followed the absolute morals and the laws based upon them, but it's their choice.

So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful? As to whether is should be banned then yes. If it's harmful to another member of society it's banned. If it's offensive to another member of society (EG Homosexuals are offensive to some people) thats not justfication to ban the action. You believe morality is subjective, correct? Whether or not something causes harm to another is the basis for your personal system or morality, correct? You believe that the government should make laws based upon whether or not something is harmful, correct? So you believe that your personal system of morality ought to determine what everyone else is and isn't allowed to do, correct?

Excuse me? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking.

So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful?

Whose definition of progress do we use? Yours? Why is yours any better than mine, or any better than Locke's religions, if all morals are subjective? Your final question is irrelevant. Assuming absolute morals, you cannot force those morals on someone else. They exist whether we acknoledge them or not. If I say, "I am 6 feet tall." I am not forcing a belief on you; I am merely stating a fact. You can choose not to believe it, but it doesn't change my height. If you deny it, you are denying truth. If there are absolute morals, and the government makes laws based on those, it is not "forcing beliefs" on anyone. It is merely saying, "This is the way morality works. You can disbelieve it. You don't have to obey if you don't want to, but there will be consequences." It doesn't matter whether a person agrees with the absolute morals or not; they are a statement of fact, and nothing will change that. Now, if morals are subjective, as you claim, then it is possible to force morals on others. If no morality is inherently more true than another, then the strongest force - whether it be a government, majority opinion, or an individual - forces its view on others. Locke is not the one advocating forcing morals on others. He believes in making laws based on morals that exist regardless of what we think. You are the one who wants to force morality on people. You believe in subjective morals, yet believe that government should be based on the morals you choose to believe in.

Why do they need to justify their morals to you? Why is your opinion so important? If morality is subjective, how can you be so arrogant as to proclaim yourself the judge of which morals are justified?

If you believe morality is subjective, why does anyone need to justify their morals?

Santenza, you're forgetting that you don't believe in a moral right; only subjective opinion. So what is your logical basis for arguing here?

DÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu- The experience of feeling that one has witnessed or experienced a new situation previously (Also known as paramnesia). There are three different types of acknowledged dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu. There is a lot of scientific research relating to dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu. Some cases of dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu have been linked with disorders, many cases are just normal daily events of seeing something you think you have already seen. People believe most dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu comes on when dreams are recorded into your long-term memory (you may not even remember the dream) but them something similiar comes out, and the neurons in your brain misfire, causing you to think you have seen this even happen before. Has this every happened to you? If it has, what type do you thnk you had? What is your explanation? Discuss. ----------------------------- Source: Wikipedia: DÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu

You say you don't wish to upset traditions for any good reason, so I ask this: What if your wife said she was keeping her last name, and she was not keen on double-barrelling her name, either? Is that a good enough reason to upset tradition? Like I said, if my wife's last name is that important to her, I'll buck tradition. I would try to compromise with her, and try to convince her to double-barrel at least. If she won't even consider that, I'm not sure how I'd react. I wouldn't want to give up my name either, and I wouldn't feel comfortable with us having different last names, as that, to me, makes us seem disunified. And something that small certainly would not be worth ending the relationship over. Personally, I don't think I'd be in a situation like that. If I'm marrying someone, it will be someone whom I love enough to compromise other things for, and who loves me enough to compromise things for me. So I don't think I'd be with a woman who doesn't love me enough to compromise when I'm willing to compromise with her. Your question is a good one; assuming there were no compromise possible, I don't know what I'd do.

DÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu- The experience of feeling that one has witnessed or experienced a new situation previously (Also known as paramnesia). There are three different types of acknowledged dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu. There is a lot of scientific research relating to dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu. Some cases of dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu have been linked with disorders, many cases are just normal daily events of seeing something you think you have already seen. People believe most dÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu comes on when dreams are recorded into your long-term memory (you may not even remember the dream) but them something similiar comes out, and the neurons in your brain misfire, causing you to think you have seen this even happen before. Has this every happened to you? If it has, what type do you thnk you had? What is your explanation? Discuss. ----------------------------- Source: Wikipedia: DÃÆÃâÃâéjÃÆÃâÃâàvu

I plan on my wife taking my last name, because I don't believe in upsetting traditions without good reason, and because I have a very strong sense of lineage. Now, if her last name is every bit as important to her as mine is to me, we could double-barrel it; I wouldn't mind that at all. However, we will have the same last name, whatever we decide. There's just something disunified about a husband and wife having different last names, and I believe in having as much unity as possible in a marriage.

And to [bleep] with Spain? :lol: While I agree that the people ought to hold government accountable to the truth, the blame for the Maine lies with the yellow press - men like William Randolf Heart, who created sensationalist news that stirred up war fever in order to sell more papers. With the press working the people into such a frenzy, McKinley, who believed in the sovereignty of the people, could hardly not go to war. So it's not always the government's fault; the media can be just as deceitful for its own purposes.

Poor D3M0NX. He probably has no idea he's being mocked. :P

Such as dying, raising Himself back up to life, appearing to hundreds of people, showing the wounds from His death, and ascending to heaven? Or something such as His followers speaking in languages they've never learned, raising people from the dead, healing the sick, feeding the poor, traveling to all ends of the world, and in all ways being transformed from cowards who easily betrayed their Lord into saints who changed the world by serving Him even to their deaths? Or would feeding 5000 with a couple loafs of bread be enough for you? If those are too outdated for you, maybe you wouldn't mind hearing some stories of such things happening in modern times to people I know?

Of course God doesn't throw good people into hell. Your problem is that you assume there is such a thing as a truly good person. Of course, you also assume that there is no proof. I challenge you to prove both of those assumptions. Now this gets complicated since we don't really understand God... but even though He is infinite, we would be striving for God, not other things. We would seek only Him, and ignore everything else. Maybe He is an infinite being, but maybe we're hit with it all at once, and would be with the same God for all eternity... Though, this is where it gets complicated..., if God really is just everything else anyways, then we're already doing that (learning about Him), and God is already with us, so crimson's question would answered anyways. Well, in the Christian belief, God is not "everything else." The universe is dependent on God, but it is a seperate thing from Him, so that point is irrelevant to Christian theology. My point is simply that we as finite beings could spend eternity exploring a relationship with an infinite being, and never exhaust that source of knowledge, novelty, and adventure. And to Viktor, what if God did leave a message that we missed?

If God were to come to earth, live among us, spend years teaching us, demonstrate power over sickness, nature, the supernatural, and even over death, would that be sufficient? Sadly, if God came to earth and was living with us directly, we would have no reason to live. Knowing God is the end of it all, if God really is the creator of everything (there would be nothing past God). So knowing him within our human lifetime would make it completely pointless to even bother with anything, since we would already know what is the greatest thing in the universe, and have been in direct contact with it, making everything worthless and pointless in comparison. Why strive for something we've already obtained? How could it ever be fully obtained? We are finite beings; God would be an infinite being. Knowing God would be the greatest adventure humans could ever embark on. We know God some, and are amazed by that knowledge. We get to know God better, and are amazed by that knowledge even more. God would be a infinite being - we could never exhaust the joy and excitement of knowing Him, for there would always be more to learn.

If God were to come to earth, live among us, spend years teaching us, demonstrate power over sickness, nature, the supernatural, and even over death, would that be sufficient?

Writing is my vent. Sometimes I write poetry, sometimes I write prose. Either way, I straighten out my thoughts and get them out of my head and on to paper. If I still need to clear my mind afterward, I'll talk to a close friend for a while.

I'm cheering for the Colts for Peyton's sake, if nothing else. He deserves a ring. :P 24-17 Colts

Would you mind posting that report please? I prefer not to use supplements, but I'd still be interested to see what those side effects are.

I have a better solution. So long as people aren't making personal attacks, let conversation flow as it will. Some topics provide natural associations with other topics. Let people make those associations, so long as they do so without attacking other users. Stop censoring people, and let discussion on important issues flow freely.

Would you agree now that no one actually respects the beliefs of other people? Everyone is intolerant of beliefs with which he disagrees. It is still entirely possible to respect other people regardless of their beliefs, but there is a huge difference between tolerating people and tolerating ideas. We're back to the point I made on the other thread about Postmodern Tolerance versus Christian Tolerance. Ultimately, Postmodern Tolerance - tolerance of everyone's ideas - is self-contradictory and impossible to put into practice. However, Christian Tolerance - loving people - works. Christian Tolerance allows you to say, "You are absoultely wrong," and still treat the person with respect, and speak the truth in love.