Locke

Your objection is nothing more than a disbelief in the Bible. I can't prove it to you one way or the other, nor will I attempt to try. If you want to have a serious discussion about Christian apologetics, I'd be happy to do so. Give me a PM. No I don't think that. You believe that the most important thing is protecting citizens from harm, therefore you do your best to force that subjective belief on them. My criticism is when you look at someone else's belief, and say it is wrong to force their belief on society. Your belief has no more weight than anyone else's, because all beliefs are subjective. What I think is good for society, might not be justifiable under your "harm" principle, but it is justifiable under my "absolute morality" principle, and since both are subjective to you, both carry equal weight. You just don't seem to understand that. This is where you become a giant hypocrite. YOU think that your belief allows everyone to co-exist peacefully, but you forget it does not allow those who like to murder and steal exist peacefully. It is only your belief that this is the best way to advance society, it is not an absolute truth that this is the best way to advance society. Since it is a subjective belief, it carries no more weight than any other belief, aka, it is no more right than any other belief. Why can you not see this?

You forgot the other side. The Republican ticket is a choice between a pro-chioce candidate, a divorced anti-gun owning pro-illegal immigration candidate, and a Mormon. 2008 really isn't the year for Southern evangelicals.

You should read The Audacity of Hope. I'm personally not a big Obama fan but I do think a lot of the book is really fantastic. I'd take Obama over Hillary any day...

Both are right (I'm assuming you've done the correct calculation). You're confusing two different ideas. One idea suggests that the laws of the physical universe are made to produce different results depending on where you are. The other idea, that you have also suggested, is that the laws of the physical universe are not actually factual. The current known laws of the physical universe suggest that velocity is dependent on where you are, correct?

A Broadway actor.

If you notice, Jesus is speaking about past beliefs in Jewish faith and shifting to a new outlook. If you want to know in depth on why, give me a PM. I find it interesting that I keep answering your questions about my beliefs, despite you using them as ways to avoid stating the obvious about your own. Why don't you just admit that the foundation of your belief is a contradiction. You believe forcing your subjective morality on other people is okay only when you deem it necessary. Talk about close minded!

That's why my first instruction for you was to read the Bible. If you read it, you will first notice that it happens in chronological order. After realizing that, you will read passages that directly refer to things that were told in the past, and that it directly refers to a change, or shift. If you didn't know that, you just haven't read it. So quit trying to use my beliefs, which you clearly have little knowledge about, against me, until you actually take the time to gain the appropriate knowledge. This also goes back to your attitude of, "if it can be questioned, it's subjective." That's not true. If people read the Bible and don't think there's been a shift, it doesn't mean it's subjective, it means they didn't read it properly. Just because something can be questioned, doesn't make it "not absolute," it just means that person has the free will and mind to question whatever he wants. So now we agree that your entire basis of morality and law is based on self-contradictions? Let me guess... your next post is going to be something like this: "Forcing subjective morality on people is okay in only the ways I deem necessary."

How can you even call it a "scientific" discussion when all you're doing is discussing imaginary facts? According to you, I could pose any statement as a perfectly logical counter to your argument. How is that a discussion? We're just making stuff up! Why is it that you don't actually believe in an absolute reality, but for the purposes of "scientific discussion," you pretend like you do? Are your views so inconsistent that you can't even live by them in a discussion?

If you read my book, it actually addresses the contradictions. Haven't you ever heard of a paradigm shift? Exactly. So quit doing it. "Better" is subjective. You're contradicting yourself. Assuming protecting from harm is good. Subjective. You're contradicting yourself. Read the Bible. Look up the definition of a paradigm shift. Then read the Bible again.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember to stick to personal insults the next time we have a discussion, rather than look at basic philosophical assumptions and their logical outworkings. Leave your big words like "logical outworkings" at home Astralinre. "Logic" is beneath him. =;

No, we can't. This is the problem. How can we concentrate on what's better for society if you don't even believe "better" exists. Try to not to evade this anymore because it's getting ridiculous to see you talk circles around this point for so many pages. You believe right and wrong, and good and bad are subjective. That means any assumption of "good" or "better" in ANY context is completely subjective. That means assume a stable society is good is SUBJECTIVE. That means assuming practicality over being unreasonable is SUBJECTIVE. By be a relativist, you are acknowledging that yours beliefs aren't any more "right" than my beliefs. You are acknowledging that they cannot work "better" because "better" doesn't exist. For you to ever ask if we think something will be "better," in any context, is for you to contradict yourself. You don't believe in better. Everytime you post you continually contradict yourself because you repeatedly state that your views, and your form of government, is "better" for society. The only problem is "better" doesn't exist. Until you quit contradicting your own beliefs, how can anyone take you seriously in a logical debate?

Your logic doesn't make sense. Should we legalize all forms of murder since they happen anyway? Murder is murder. Period. Outlawing abortion leads to people killing themselves to murder, legalizing it means that much more people are willing and able to kill babies. Either way, babies are being killed. One way reduces it and doesn't allow the government to endorse it. Non.

I don't believe murdering babies is better for society so your question is nonsensical.

I have very little respect for those who bounce away from tough debates and onto easier and brainless ones.

It's not more forcing someone to follow rules than it is forcing them to pay taxes to support things they don't agree with, forcing them not to murder if they think it's okay, forcing them to abide by business regulations that they disagree with, etc. And since when you disagree with forcing people to follow your beliefs instead of their own?

The government can allow any religion to practice as long as they aren't endorsing it. There is a difference between permitting a religion to practice, and endorsing it. EDIT: You're also doing a play on words with "wrong." I believe other religions to be incorrect. I guess I should also insert that I believe in the freedom to practice religion. I'll even go as far to say that if in someone's religion it says homosexuality is okay, they can marry homosexuals through the church. But not through the government.

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Correct. Except I don't believe it's discrimination.

I don't flaunt the fact that I have a biological problem with addiction. It is also impossible to outlaw that. Same situation. Which leads into the discussion as well if the temptation is wrong, or giving into the temptation is wrong. I don't believe that everything about someone can be controlled so there are some "wrongs" I don't believe can be legislated against. In those cases, I refer to my point that the government should not endorse "wrong."

Of course it can, under your belief. You believe that right and wrong is subjective, therefore everyone's opinions on right and wrong are equally valid. Justification is entirely dependent on right and wrong and therefore it's entirely subjective. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in an absolute right, so YOU are the one giving validation to someone's belief that whites are supreme over minorities.

Because it is. That's the thing about absolute morality, it just is. My beliefs come from my religion if that's what you're wondering. I don't propose to do anything with people for disagreeing with me. If you think it's okay to kill someone, that's fine. If you kill someone, there will be legal consequences.

Questioning doesn't make it subjective. I'm drinking orange juice right now. Questioning that does not change the fact that I am indeed drinking orange juice. Let me explain this again: Justification only works if there is an absolute good, which you don't believe in. I can justify killing someone is "murder" is considered good. If murder is considered bad, I can't justify it. Justifying anything assume an absolute good, which you don't believe in. By asking for justification, you are contradicting your own beliefs.

It all revolves around a few absolute beliefs. Primarily, I believe that all people should have equal rights. I also believe in an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and I therefore think that anything related to the government should not endorse wrong. As long as rights are not be trampled, and wrong is not being endorsed, whatever works.

That's subjective. If right and wrong is subjective, justification is pointless. No matter how you justify, you are assuming one thing is better, or more right than something else. That is a contradiction of your belief that right and wrong is subjective.

I said a majority vote would be the only way to decide on laws IF you believe in a subjective right or wrong. I don't believe in a subjective right or wrong, I believe in an absolute right or wrong.