Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
841

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I feel that morality is a word that describes an evolutionary construct and is considered a tier above ethics, politics, and economics because it is a more universal concept. As such, morality tends to be much more static throughout time and different cultures even if a society chooses not to act on their morality.

There are some that lack this evolutionary construct and end often end up in prisons and such places and the only reason they are aware of it is because they have been told about it over and over again.

I would also like to add that I believe morality is a huge reason humans have been as successful as a species up to this point.[/quote]

Is this your definition of morality?

Sorry, but you are going to have to dumb it down a bit more for my slow brain to follow.

I’ll let you keep your contention that morality is based in the process of human evolution for now. (No matter where you contend the “source” of relativism springs from, in the end it leads us to the same place). Can you just tell me, in a single or perhaps two sentences, what the meaning of the word “moral” is?

I’ll give you a situation I have plenty of experience with: Pretend I am a foreigner with only the most limited grasp of the English language. Please teach me the meaning of the word “moral.”

I will give you my definition, devoid of all sources:

Moral = What is right, or what a human should do. The opposite of moral being, essentially, evil, or wrong, what a human should not do.

I believe my definition works for either of us. It has an effect upon neither my contention that there exists an absolute, changeless, eternal morality, nor yours that morality is relative, situational and mutable. For example I can say throwing a baby off a cliff is immoral no matter what, in any situation, and you can say that it is actually moral in exceptional situations, and then list your arguments why. Either way, we both need to have come to an agreement as to what we are talking about or we could spend pages talking from completely different perspectives (see my short misunderstanding of kamui’s post a few pages back as an example).

Anyway, if you have any problem with my definition, please offer yours so that we can first come to an accord as to what we are talking about, before we start talking about it ;)[/quote]

I’ll try… This is going to be paraphrase of what I said earlier so it probably won’t be as good.

morality- a mostly universal instinct that gives people the feeling that some things are inherently bad and others are inherently good.[/quote]

So, morality is a feeling?

Seriously?

842

A very strong instinct and feeling for the majority of people. But simply put, yes.

843

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
is there any other truth than a scientific truth? — because there’s a lot of science supporting atheism and a lot of science refuting religion.[/quote]

Which sciences are talking about that do this e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Theology, &c.[/quote]

Theology is not a science.[/quote]

Um, yes it is.[/quote]

No, it isn’t.[/quote]

Yes, it is.[/quote]

No, it really isn’t.[/quote]

I suppose it is, isn’t it? And if not, what is it?[/quote]

It isn’t. What it is is a joke. It is to Philosophy what Alchemy is to Chemistry.[/quote]

No it isn’t.

844

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Not to nitpick, okay thats exactly what I’m doing, but there is a clear philosophy, or more like a coherent underlying view of the structure of creation behind alchemy, it wasn’t just about turning stone to gold.[/quote]

Alchemy, derived from the Arabic word al-kimia, is both a philosophy and an ancient practice focused on the attempt to change base metals into gold, investigating the preparation of the “elixir of longevity”, and achieving ultimate wisdom, involving the improvement of the alchemist as well as the making of several substances described as possessing unusual properties. The practical aspect of alchemy can be viewed as a protoscience, having generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances.[/quote]

So, what you are trying to say is that soft sciences are not sciences…okay.

845

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]

This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.

846

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]

This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]

…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?

847

Chris, I know that’s not what Catholics think. Wasn’t really planning to change your mind.

Also: I won’t throw a baby off a cliff. I won’t let anybody else throw a baby off a cliff. I won’t argue that anybody has the right to throw a baby off a cliff. Not even now and then, in special circumstances. It is murder. I’m not wishy-washy on the issue.

I just don’t think you can derive “is” from “ought.” You won’t find “DON’T THROW BABIES OFF CLIFFS!” written on the Horsehead Nebula, and even if you did, you couldn’t prove that you have to pay attention to it.

After all, why do you care whether or not you’re just?

I could play “why do you care?” with you forever, and sooner or later, you’d be stuck with “Because I care, dammit!” (Or I suppose you could infinite regress, but that’ll take a while…) God doesn’t work, because I could ask you “Why do you care what God thinks?”

848

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.

[/quote]

It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]

Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.

And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.

[/quote]

So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?

If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]

I do not concede that.

One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.

That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.

[/quote]

Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.

Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.

People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.[/quote]

Oh I know that you can do that, but that does not make it valid just because a lot of people actually did.

Just because human beings are somehow wired to search for causality does not mean that is necessarily exists in any specific circumstance or at all for that matter.

Also, if you can postulate an uncaused cause, I can simply postulate an eternal universe.

Pretty much has the same explanatory power, without the need to drag something into it that blows up your whole argument.

Why is there only one uncaused cause?

Why not many?

They could pop up all the time, which would pretty much ruin causality as we know it.

edit: Plus, I cannot refute something that is completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

I could make up tons of stuff you could not refute, which would not really make them true.

[/quote]

You don’t think.
It’s not a postulation, it is a deductive conclusion derived by pure reason. You can either refute it, or not, those are the only choices.
You can’t “make up” irrefutable facts. They are either irrefutable facts or they are not. Can’t make them up out of nothing.

The logic of causation does not allow for multiple uncaused-causes. Logic simply prohibits it. There is one or none. As you travel up the causal chain the element of multiples starts to disappear and things gain commonality. For instance, a lump of shit and a bar of gold are still made up of the same subatomic elements.

There is no evidence through science or reason that the universe is eternal, though even if it somehow were, everything that exists is still contingent upon something else, so an eternal universe does not matter.
Either refute it, agree with it, or pretend like it does not exist. Those are your choices.

849

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]

Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.[/quote]

If the universe was uncaused, it wouldn’t exist.

850

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]

Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.[/quote]

If the universe was uncaused, it wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

If God was uncaused, he wouldn’t exist.

851

it’s the same thing.

if you postulate an eternal universe, the eternal existence (and/or the eternal nature) of this universe IS your uncaused cause.

it is more than enough for atheists. (and pantheists either).

theists have more work to do after postulating an “uncaused cause”.

they have to postulate that the universe itself is not an uncaused caused, but is caused.
they have to postulate that the universe was caused by something else, something that is absolutely not part of the universe, like a transcendant God.
then they have to demonstrate that the transcendant God that caused the universe is actually their God. (a specific personnal God with all his “additionnal features”, omniscience, omnipotence, etc).

more to postulate, more to demonstrate.

852

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
why not ?
where is the logical contradiction here ?

and if a cause cannot cause itself, what caused God, if not Himself ? [/quote]

Nothing, he is the uncaused causer.[/quote]

How can you accept this and not accept the premise that the universe is uncaused?[/quote]

Because the universe doesn’t have the characteristics, plus things die. And if the universe were uncaused then itself couldn’t die and nothing begot of the universe could die.[/quote]

If the universe was uncaused, it wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

If God was uncaused, he wouldn’t exist.[/quote]

If God was caused, he would not be God. Ding-a-ling.

853

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A very strong instinct and feeling for the majority of people. But simply put, yes.[/quote]

Cool, let’s start over here then.

If morality is not any sort of true metaphysical law (Moral Law) that we violate at our peril, but nothing more than an instinct or a feeling wrought from millions of years of selection for non-sociopathic humans with the ability to exercise restraint and discipline, what then is to stop you from engaging in absolutely any desire you happen to have, so long as you are careful not to get caught?

Since we are all just evolved apes acting upon our urges, why not take advantage of that and get while the gettin’s good?

854

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.

[/quote]

It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]

Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.

And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.

[/quote]

So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?

If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]

I do not concede that.

One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.

That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.

[/quote]

Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.

Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.

People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.[/quote]

Oh I know that you can do that, but that does not make it valid just because a lot of people actually did.

Just because human beings are somehow wired to search for causality does not mean that is necessarily exists in any specific circumstance or at all for that matter.

Also, if you can postulate an uncaused cause, I can simply postulate an eternal universe.

Pretty much has the same explanatory power, without the need to drag something into it that blows up your whole argument.

Why is there only one uncaused cause?

Why not many?

They could pop up all the time, which would pretty much ruin causality as we know it.

edit: Plus, I cannot refute something that is completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

I could make up tons of stuff you could not refute, which would not really make them true.

[/quote]

You don’t think.
It’s not a postulation, it is a deductive conclusion derived by pure reason. You can either refute it, or not, those are the only choices.
You can’t “make up” irrefutable facts. They are either irrefutable facts or they are not. Can’t make them up out of nothing.

The logic of causation does not allow for multiple uncaused-causes. Logic simply prohibits it. There is one or none. As you travel up the causal chain the element of multiples starts to disappear and things gain commonality. For instance, a lump of shit and a bar of gold are still made up of the same subatomic elements.

There is no evidence through science or reason that the universe is eternal, though even if it somehow were, everything that exists is still contingent upon something else, so an eternal universe does not matter.
Either refute it, agree with it, or pretend like it does not exist. Those are your choices. [/quote]

Critique of pure reason by Immanuel Kant.

He demonstrated that pure reason can prove anything and its opposite.

855

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A very strong instinct and feeling for the majority of people. But simply put, yes.[/quote]

Cool, let’s start over here then.

If morality is not any sort of true metaphysical law (Moral Law) that we violate at our peril, but nothing more than an instinct or a feeling wrought from millions of years of selection for non-sociopathic humans with the ability to exercise restraint and discipline, what then is to stop you from engaging in absolutely any desire you happen to have, so long as you are careful not to get caught?

Since we are all just evolved apes acting upon our urges, why not take advantage of that and get while the gettin’s good? [/quote]

There are many that do this and are careful not to get caught. They typically end up in prison or as social outcasts because they eventually do get caught.

856

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
A very strong instinct and feeling for the majority of people. But simply put, yes.[/quote]

Cool, let’s start over here then.

If morality is not any sort of true metaphysical law (Moral Law) that we violate at our peril, but nothing more than an instinct or a feeling wrought from millions of years of selection for non-sociopathic humans with the ability to exercise restraint and discipline, what then is to stop you from engaging in absolutely any desire you happen to have, so long as you are careful not to get caught?

Since we are all just evolved apes acting upon our urges, why not take advantage of that and get while the gettin’s good? [/quote]

There are many that do this and are careful not to get caught. They typically end up in prison or as social outcasts because they eventually do get caught. [/quote]

Let’s say they didn’t get caught. Some really don’t. Is it now okay?

857

Even for those that don’t get caught, it usually does not create genuine joy for them. And I would say it’s not okay because it goes against evolutionary ethics. As a species capable of a high level of self-awareness, I believe it’s our responsibility to do our best to only commit to actions that raise the well-being and fitness of life as a whole.

858

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.

[/quote]

It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]

Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.

And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.

[/quote]

So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?

If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]

I do not concede that.

One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.

That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.

[/quote]

Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.

Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.

People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.[/quote]

Oh I know that you can do that, but that does not make it valid just because a lot of people actually did.

Just because human beings are somehow wired to search for causality does not mean that is necessarily exists in any specific circumstance or at all for that matter.

Also, if you can postulate an uncaused cause, I can simply postulate an eternal universe.

Pretty much has the same explanatory power, without the need to drag something into it that blows up your whole argument.

Why is there only one uncaused cause?

Why not many?

They could pop up all the time, which would pretty much ruin causality as we know it.

edit: Plus, I cannot refute something that is completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

I could make up tons of stuff you could not refute, which would not really make them true.

[/quote]

You don’t think.
It’s not a postulation, it is a deductive conclusion derived by pure reason. You can either refute it, or not, those are the only choices.
You can’t “make up” irrefutable facts. They are either irrefutable facts or they are not. Can’t make them up out of nothing.

The logic of causation does not allow for multiple uncaused-causes. Logic simply prohibits it. There is one or none. As you travel up the causal chain the element of multiples starts to disappear and things gain commonality. For instance, a lump of shit and a bar of gold are still made up of the same subatomic elements.

There is no evidence through science or reason that the universe is eternal, though even if it somehow were, everything that exists is still contingent upon something else, so an eternal universe does not matter.
Either refute it, agree with it, or pretend like it does not exist. Those are your choices. [/quote]

Critique of pure reason by Immanuel Kant.

He demonstrated that pure reason can prove anything and its opposite.

[/quote]

Then you misunderstood what he said.

859

I’ve never understood the causality argument against atheism. The whole cause and effect thing is entirely dependent on time, which we can’t assume to exist outside the universe. People have this tendency to assume that our universe is floating around inside another universe that behaves exactly like our own. Using words like “before” or “outside” when talking about the universe itself is like telling someone to head east when they’re floating out in space. Absolutely meaningless.

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]

For what it’s worth, I completely agree with this. I think we have to accept that morality will always be relative, so we’ll never have a truly “universal” code. But if you take a group that is based on a particular goal, we can “locally” determine an objective moral code. And the fact that we haven’t done this, or perhaps have just gotten so far away from it, is lazy and selfish. This morality should be very basic, e.g. natural law. I have no problem with personal morality which extends beyond that, but it should stay personal. Natural rights are supposed to prevent personal morality from becoming anything more, but again, we seem to have gotten quite a ways away from that.

860

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]

This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]

…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]

…I’m not going to go into this theological debate. To big for right now.