Sly_Wizard

To whomever mentioned the UUA: The UU (And Mormonism as well as JW) is to Christianity what the People's Republic of China is to democracy.

...Okay. You're just playing with me, aren't you? First of all, find me where I said you considered your morality to be "absolute". You can't because I didn't say it. I said that when relativistic set of morals tries to impose on another set of morals it ceases to be relativistic in favor of absolutist. I'm not sure where you got the whole "You said this" thing from. Second of all, I've yet to hear anyone say "This is wrong today. But tomorrow it'll be right." Why not? Because everyone has an ingrained set of morals-- NO ONE gives credence to all moral systems (I don't care who you are). Without giving credence to all moral systems as valid, you simply cannot be a moral relativist. Everyone, at some point in time, tries to impose their morality upon someone else because you deem sense of morality to be inferior. The absolute closest you can get to moral relativism is this statement: "Morality is relative to everyone, but the common morality of the majoriy imposes it's will on the uncommon morality of the minority." Henceforth why morals have changed relatively little over the history of mankind.

The act of doing so is a moral judgment in itself. "Right" and "wrong" do not exist - only what we think of them to be. Just because I consider myself correct, does not mean that something it is absolute. Even if I'm a moral relativist. If I consider myself correct according to the time which I live within - to consider someone elses morals as "correct" would require that I make the moral decision to defer from my own morals in the first place, which would be based upon my morality. And as I consider my morals "correct within my time" - I do not consider them absolute. Okay. I'm not so sure you understood what I wrote out, so lemme' try this again. No one is a moral relativist, as to be one would be to give credence to every value system as valid (Validity has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong"). To consider someone else's values as "right" or "wrong" would make you a moral absolutist, as you're making a value judgement concerning someone else's morality (Not to mention that you would try to suppress or even get rid of actions you deem as "wrong"). Pretty simple, really. Whoa whoa whoa... Where on Earth did I say anything about objective morality? I didn't (And am 99.9999% sure I've never said anything about objective morality anywhere). I said moral absolutism. Two different things. First of all, there's nothing "valid" about moral relativism. Second of all, I'd just like to ask who's the one projecting the strawman now? Once again, no one is concerned with what's "socially acceptable" and "socially unacceptable". We're arguing "right" and "wrong".

Zeitgeist is a load of horse [cabbage]. What I wrote isn't. The collective attitudes, literature and mindset of a time creating a moral back drop against which we can measure what is deemed to be okay and what is not is horse [cabbage]? I take it you haven't seen the movie? >_<

Oi vey... I've seen this before and it's still wrong. Because I'm lazy and don't feel like going through this piece by piece, I'll just focus on this, the last sentence ---> "Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider 'wrong', as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.". First of all, it's important to note that relativistic principles exist everywhere in nature. No one has disputed this (Just getting this out there). The problem with comparing moral relativism to other relativist principles is that they lack one very important feature; value judgements (You know... "Right" and "wrong", which I made of point of mentioning the first time). There are no value judgments anywhere when discussing matters of "spatio-temporality" (Or whatever) because we know through physics that motion is relative. In fact, value judgements are confined to-- You guessed it!-- Morality and morality is, more or less, a matter of philosophy moreso than it is natural sciences. To compare the two is to engage in a bit of a non-sequitur. Anyway, to get to the last sentence, it's highlights exactly what I said earlier. A moral system which does not treat all other moral systems as equal isn't relative. If it deems other systems as superior, it will try to adopt them. If it deems other systems as inferior, it will try to suppress them. When one system tries to impose itself on another system (Or, in this case, when one's morals begin to impose on another's morals) then that system ceases to be relative in favor of absolute. No one said the relativist couldn't stop someone from raping another, but that once he does he's exercising his or her morals as "right" and the other person's as "wrong" and, thusly, is adopting an absolutist stance towards morality. Try as you will, but there is no getting around this fact.

This was more or less my point. The supposed Divine will always be a mystery, and choosing to ignore it requires many less assumptions than claiming to be on personal terms with it. What standard of proof did you use when deciding to become a Christian? Actually, it doesn't. Choosing to ignore it requires one to put a certain amount of, for lack of a better word, faith in human reasoning. And, last I checked, the only way one can justify human reasoning is by appealing to human reasoning. Choosing to accept the Divine simple means that one is able to admit the shortcomings of human reasoning (That is, that what's known will forever be known; what's knowable will forever be knowable; and what's unknowable will forever be unknowable). And there is no "standard of proof" by which I'm a Christian. Asking as much implies there's scientific reasoning behind my being a Christian.

Zeitgeist is a load of horse [cabbage]. What I wrote isn't.

And what I wrote in my two sentences still stands. And by that I mean in the setences you quoted. AAANNNDDD... You totally didn't answer the question. The beauty of the scientific mind is that it will change as evidence is discovered. As for what standard of proof is required, empirical would be nice. Even though you only answered half the question... Explain to me how one derives empirical evidence from the Divine? Anything which can be qualified based on naturalistic principles ceases to be Divine.

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality." Please explain. It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relativist in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses.

And what I wrote in my two sentences still stands. And by that I mean in the setences you quoted. AAANNNDDD... You totally didn't answer the question.

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic. If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

lol there is no proof that god exists except for a book written thousands of years ago by crazy nomads wandering aimlessly through a desert talking to bushes. Incorrect. What you mean to say is "There's no proof as to which you'll accept as proof of God's existence". To state that there is no proof means one of two things: Your standard of "proof" is far too stringent or you're just being dishonest. ...And, as a total side note (And a question) what would you accept as definitive proof of God's existence. And, assuming you couldn't view said proof, how many people would have to simultaneously witness this proof being evidenced before you accept that God exists?

I don't know why I keep clicking on this thread. Maybe it's for the lulz. I dunno'. Anyway... Amazingly, you display the same (Lack of knowledge) as the people who use the aforementioned argument as to why the Bible is the Word of God. No, the Bible isn't the Word of God because it says it is. It's the Word of God because it's coherent, infallible and forms a cohesive view of the natural world, therefore proving it's Divine Inspiration and therefore proving that God exists (As no book written by man has possesses all of the three aforementioned traits. No, any deed can't be forgiven if you pray. Please, show me the passage stating otherwise. Ummm... Yeah. That is generally what happens when arguing ultimate truths. How, exactly, doe this make Christianity wrong. Ummm... Yeah. See my response above. ...Obviously there was a point here, but I missed it. Care to explain to me what you were getting at?

Sorry. I didn't see your question. It's occurred in ancient Rome, in most/all of the kingdoms of the Middle East before the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Asia and, to a lesser extent, the kingdoms of Africa and tribes of the Americas. The verdict is still out on Europe (Though I'd expect European society to collapse in on itself, so to speak, in the next century. Provided humans last that long). I'm 99.999% sure that's not true-- At all. I actually think that Zierro is right. If a kid grows up with two homosexual parents it is a good chance that the kid will become homosexual as well, because they would think that people of the same sex should be together like their parents. Or they would become homosexual because thier parents forced it upon them at an early age. None the less homosexual parents = homosexual kid. No, that's not correct by any stretch. That's like saying that heterosexual couples breed heterosexual kids. It's absurd and totally not supported by any kind of study.

I'm 99.999% sure that's not true-- At all.

Worst. Argument. Ever. Seriously. You don't want to go there. Cabbage you, cabbage wipe. You're the type of person to call it a lifestyle choice, right? No. It's not. It's natural, and it's how they're born. It's how they're born? Proof please? (And, before you go and say it, it's not my job to prove a negative ("People aren't born gay") as, though possibly, it's exhaustive and pointless-- Much like me trying to prove aliens don't exist. It's easier for you to prove the positive assertion. To steal and modify a certain phrase "The onus is on you to prove they're born gay, not me to prove they aren't!".)

For the same reason people engage in illegal activities in direct defiance of the law and regardless of the consequences (Even if those consequences might include death)-- Because they more or less can. It's human nature. To argue that something must not be a choice because people do it even though it's not socially acceptable is the ultimate in fallacies. I highly doubt you'd accept this argument as true when placed on less-than-acceptable practices. Egads! What you've written above is-- Much like it is usually-- A misrepresentation of the "People aren't born gay argument". No one has said that someone up and chooses to be gay at a whim, but rather that no one is born gay. One isn't born with certain preferences. They're ingrained into a person's being over time. And the only thing this proves is that some people continue to be gay. Nothing more and nothing less.

Worst. Argument. Ever. Seriously. You don't want to go there.

There's nothing to explain, because it is an indisputable fact which history attests to. Short, sweet and to the point.

The practical solution is to kick them in the balls and then run. Maybe even get in a couple of kicks while they're writhing in pain and then run.

So summed up, your argument is "I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just think gays are worse than me for acting the way they do". Whatever. See, I'm not anti-religious but this is what annoys me. You believing you're so much better than anyone else because a religion founded 2000 years ago tells you that you are. What evidence, or even what right, have you got to call homosexuality a sin? Unless of course what Jesus really meant was, "Love thy neighbour, hate thy gay". In which case, I apologise for my complete misunderstanding of Christianity. Yeh, but Christians don't really listen to Jesus that much when you REALLY think about it. And they always try and shpeel off things that he says that they happen to not agree with. Well, they do listen to Jesus, but they also listen to the rest of the Bible. And other parts of the Bible contradict Jesus. But of course, these are only "metaphorical". :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Interpretation stems from your beliefs. Your beliefs are caused by your your experiences and life which are manifested into your subconscious. Your subconscious, is different to everyone elses. Therefore, if the Bible is open to interpretation, there must be contradictions in it. If you read a book with contradictions in it and choose to believe only some sections, all you are doing is choosing things which you already agree with in the first place. Morality isn't objective, and therefore, "right" and "wrong" don't exist. There is only what you believe. And if you use the Bible to "believe", then as said before, you're just using it to backup something you already know. Love thy neighbor vs. Kill all homosexuals You decide Christians. But, after you make your decision, please don't try and bs us into thinking that the Bible is all perfect and provides you with proof of God's existence, when all you've done is looked at something, checked it out with your subconscious, and made a decision based on what you already think. Okay. Two things here. 1.) Moral relativism is bad. Very bad. 2.) "Love thy neighbor vs. Kill all homosexuals" is not only a false dilemma but also, at best, a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine and/or, at worst, a pitiful attempt at trying to purposely misconstrue the Bible in order to make some otherwise non-existant point.

*Sigh* Okay. First of all, this is REALLY old news and isn't worthy of a response. But I'm bored. First and foremost (I mean, the absolute most important fact), most atheists are *white* (This can clearly be evidenced by the demographic shift in Christianity alone, whereas by the year 2050 less than 20% of Christians are to be of white European descent). Within the United States, there are clear socio-economic differences between whites and non-whites-- The most important being income distribution. Why is income distribution important? Because college ain't free and the costs are rising. What does this mean in the long-run? Well, it's rather simple. Minorities, who on average tend to be more religious than non-minorities (This isn't a knock on anyone) attend college at a less rate than those non-minorities who tend to be less religious, so you get the appearance that non-religious folk are smarter than less religious folk when this isn't the case. Don't believe me? Then try to find a study which compares the IQ of non-religious persons to that of religious persons. Then plot those factors against, for example, GDP. You'll notice that GDP and religiosity are negatively correlated. Next, within two countries with vastly differing GDP's, pick out a certain ethnic group and compare their views on religion-- They're *fairly* consistent. What does that mean? Well, it's simple. GDP affects IQ, but IQ doesn't directly effect religiosity. In other words, the level of education or that of the achievements in IQ tests proved to be highly correlated with social class and with cultural indicators. Thus, there is no actual direct connection between religiosity and intelligence, since the elements that set the level of educational achievements are different than those of religiosity. ...Oh, and for the record, IQ doesn't measure intelligence.

No one, 'cuz no one matter how much I dislike someone, I wouldn't kill them.

It hasn't so much as rained here :?

What, exactly, is there to explain? You're trying to compare two completely different skills while assuming that they both work the same way (When, in actuality, they don't). First of all, it's going to cost you over 100M in shards alone to reach level 99 (Unless, of course, you plan on using solely gold charms to level up with), so your argument that you shouldn't spend over 100M goes out the window. Second of all, notice how you didn't address the fact that you literally have to collect a few HUNDRED THOUSAND charms to reach level 99. Third of all, there's only one thing you can do to train: Find a charm, find the corresponding seconds and infuse the pouch. ...Well, you could buy a pouch and summon, but who would do that for experience?