Locke

Neither of the words "fundamentalist" or "intolerance" means mean or hateful - that's only your interpretation of them.

No you're missing the entire point. If you believe in ABSOLUTE morality, there has to be something that makes it absolute. I don't want evidence that what you believe the standard is exists - but you have to have a standard, otherwise it's not absolute. The definition of absolute necessitates that you have a standard to base your morality on. Yes I have and if you know anything about logic like you claim to you would understand it. You said "logic" is your standard and I challenged you by reminding you that it is logically impossible to break the inevitable "is/ought" gap when speaking about morality. The unbreakable "is/ought" gap is a logical fact that I have presented to you. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't even be talking about logic because you clearly have no background in the field.

The problem is; all Christians use the bible to back up their believes whether it's the peaceful ones or the fundamentalist ones. As I am aware all the Christian 'sects' oppose homosexuality it is just these people are taking a step too far. You don't even know what the word "fundamentalist" means so I don't know why you're trying to use it in a sentence. Happy? Please explain why you used "fundamentalist" in juxtaposition with "peaceful" when those words are not opposites as you suggest.

The problem is; all Christians use the bible to back up their believes whether it's the peaceful ones or the fundamentalist ones. As I am aware all the Christian 'sects' oppose homosexuality it is just these people are taking a step too far. You don't even know what the word "fundamentalist" means so I don't know why you're trying to use it in a sentence.

If you believe in absolute morality you need a standard for it. I have already explained to you that logic cannot be a standard for absolute morality, and you have failed to give me an example showing the opposite. If you believe in absolute morality, please explain what godless standard you use, and how it works in application.

I would wager that he is weeping for all of us.

It's been proven that morality has proven advantages for natural selection, a proven theory. No it hasn't. It has been proven that certain behaviors have advantages - there is no proof that morality is biological. Given two different scenarios, opposite behaviors can have advantages for natural selection. This has nothing to do with morality. You clearly didn't read the origin of this discussion. I won't continue discussing with you.

No I'm not, as evident of my saying this: But if you want to go down this road... under that route, if A is moral for person 1 and -A is moral for person 2, then person 1 would have to believe that person 2 is wrong. If this is the case, then person 1 is being "arrogant." It is logically impossible to cross the "is/ought gap" which would be a necessity in producing any moral statement. If you can prove that the is/ought gap can logically be crossed, you will have done something that no logician has ever done in the history of recorded history. However, my guess is you will not offer any such suggestion. Maybe I just missed it when I read all of that. If morality is biological, there would be physical evidence for this, but I didn't read anything about physical evidence for this. Where is it?

1. Of course it is insane's belief - that is assumed. You have no room in serious discussion if you think "I believe" should preface every belief. Read The Republic. Read The Prince. Read the Nichomachean Ethics. You know what all of those great works have in common? They are all the beliefs of the writers, yet none of them had to preface their books with "I believe." 2. Read the definition of arrogance. It has to do with self-worth, not the declaration of knowledge. It isn't. You are claiming to believe logic can produce morality, and any good logician knows that this is logically impossible. If you can't defend your statement, you have no right to boast of your "logic." Big difference between atheists and agnostics. An atheist firmly believes God doesn't exist - and agnostic has no belief one way or the other. Talking about the "removal of God" is a reference to someone who firmly believes there is no God; ergo atheists. There isn't biological evidence for morality. Let me put it to you this way: How do we know that our hearing is a result of the brain? No, but I wouldn't make the claim that any of those groups are arrogant.

The problem with the information is that it is entirely speculative and based on behavior, not biology.

My ultimate belief, then, is in non-absolute morality. I believe people can have their own belief that their morals are absolute, as long as they respect others morals and acknowledge the possibility that while they believe their morals to be absolute truth there is a chance they aren't. I don't think there's one magical set of morals out there that will send you to heaven while the rest won't, so I don't believe in absolute morality. I think as long as you use good moral judgment, if there is a God, he would accept atheists if they lived moral lives close enough to his objective morals set down for followers. So you believe that morality is absolute on a person-by-person basis?

Because we rise above that, stand for beauty and righteousness, and heckle them from a distance. Also because when they were caught, they would be sued into oblivion.

Arrogance has to do with the belief in one's self-importance, not in believing one is right. The way I know that you understand this is because you said "evidence for his righteousness." Insane never claims to be righteous (which would be an arrogant claim). You are making up your own definition for arrogance. So where did these simple rules of logic originate? I ask you this for a simple reason: It is logically impossible to break the "is/ought gap," which you are suggesting by claiming your absolute morals come from logic. I would encourage you to reevaluate your own "absolute morality" and tell me if you ever once cross the is/ought gap. I think if you believe you don't, you will be surprised. I wasn't justifying it. I just thought it was humorous that you were offended by one "arrogant" person showing his "arrogance" towards another "arrogant" person.

Absolute morality exists or it doesn't. If he does not believe in absolute morality, he believes I am wrong. Yes it is. Therefore I'm an agnost who considers the chance that god exists to be less than 10^-99. Now this chance doesn't anything anyway, because he either exists or he doesn't exist. So it offends you when insane talks about atheists, even though you aren't one - yet at the same time you also agree that the very foundation of atheism is arrogant, and therefore offensive. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. So both absolute morality AND non-absolute morality exists? That's the silliest stance I've ever heard. I'm sorry - but it is NOT arrogant to believe something is true. It's not real morality - it's merely a whim. By saying that it depends on the person, you are acknowledging a logical contradiction (both A and -A). That's impossible.

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made? I'm sure. Would you please provide me with some biological evidence to show me what causes morality?

You sure about that? Or is that an assumption you've made? Under your made up definition of arrogance, it is arrogant of you tell me that my belief is wrong. Because that is an atheist belief. Isn't it arrogant of atheists to say that "God does not exist," and that it's "their way or the highway" in terms of God's existence? So you don't believe in objective morality? What's the point in discussing this if that is the entire premise? This isn't about subjective morality and the existence of God, it's about objective morality and the existence of God. It has everything to do with your made up definition of arrogance. Under your definition, anyone who has an opposing belief than you is arrogant. That's silly. Now let's talk about your point about morality. If you don't believe in an absolute standard of morality then it necessarily concludes that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective it necessarily concludes that both A and -A can be moral. However, under the law of non-contradiction, you can't have both A and -A so that can't be true. Therefore, there has to be EITHER a standard of objective morality OR morality does not exist. Pick your option, but you can't logically have both.

Why the hell would they protest at that funeral? They protest military funerals because it is their belief that military men and women are killed because God is punishing America for their tolerance of fags. Therefore, people should not be mourning over a death that God has caused.

That doesn't quite fit the definition of arrogance. I know that you are trying to make a point about Christians being arrogant because it is true very often, but Insane has never conducted himself in a way someone could call arrogant - and you creating your own definition of the word is not going to work.

I wrote a research paper about the Westboro Baptist Church. The church calls themselves "Baptists," but they have been booted out of the official denomination and have just kept the name. The church is composed of about 80 members - all 80 members are related to each other in some way - all descendants from the preacher Fred Phelps. Before they started their campaign against America, their membership was about 100 members but the 20 members unrelated to the Phelps left. They haven't had anyone join their church since their campaign started. This is absolutely sickening: Phelps' two daughters are brilliant lawyers. The way the church makes it's money to campaign is by using their hate speech to antagonize people into assaulting them (sometimes just by throwing stuff at them). The two girls then sue whoever was antagonized into attacking to make more money for their campaign. When they were protesting some military funerals, one of the Commanders in the army had to brief the funeral party about what the two girls did so they were all careful not to be sued. Their campaign includes: Hate fags. Hating the military. Hating Catholics. Hating America. They have also (on their website) rewritten popular songs to have lyrics about why God hates America. For instance, "This Land is Your Land" was turned into, "This Land is fag Land." I encourage anyone who's interested to look up some interviews or speeches that these people have done. It's eye-opening about the hate out in this world. I especially recommend the interview between the two daughters and Sean Hannity. This past fall, when the Amish schoolgirls were killed, the WBC planned to protest their funeral. In an effort to spare the community of their hatred, radio talk show host Michael Reagan convinced the group to not go if he allowed them free access on his radio show for a morning (estimated worth = $300,000). What horrible people.

Is it? Why is that?

It doesn't make sense because religion has existed for as long as mankind as existed. You just don't have your facts correct.

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence? thats what I said. How would mankind's need (or lack thereof) for religion have any effect on mankind millions of years before mankind existed? That doesn't make any sense. Are you just making up facts when you say "500 million?" If you're going to make up facts, why should we consider anything you say to be accurate?

So your point is that if we actually needed religion, we would have gone extinct millions of years before we even first came into existence?

How do you suppose that? I would say hope. If you're poor/dying/have nothing in life and suicide is a sin, religion is what keeps you going. Otherwise a lot of people would have nothing to live for. He said we don't need religion and then he made up some fact about 500 years ago.

How do you suppose that?