superstition defeats science

[chcr]

Here is a list straight from The Abolition of Man that show some of the similarities. As you can see, they do not vary wildly.

*Sigh*

Ya know what, I give up. You are far too obtuse for my patience level at this age. Truth, like morality is subjective. When you open up your mind (if you ever do) you will see the reality of that statement. You think that this is not true and I'll say for the last time, it doesn't matter because what you hold to be true is not what I hold to be true. You are wrong but of course, you hold a differing view. One of the main differences between us is that I recognize that it's okay for you to hold a differing view, it has no effect whatsoever in the greater scheme of things. Have fun wallowing in your self-righteous indignation, it bores me.

 

[Gotholic]

*Sigh*

Ya know what, I give up. You are far too obtuse for my patience level at this age. Truth, like morality is subjective. When you open up your mind (if you ever do) you will see the reality of that statement. You think that this is not true and I'll say for the last time, it doesn't matter because what you hold to be true is not what I hold to be true. You are wrong but of course, you hold a differing view. One of the main differences between us is that I recognize that it's okay for you to hold a differing view, it has no effect whatsoever in the greater scheme of things. Have fun wallowing in your self-righteous indignation, it bores me.

It is quite interesting that a man who claims that there is no real right or real wrong is saying that I'm really wrong.

Throughout recorded history, no civilization has been totally different in regards to morality. I even gave you some proof of this and you simply dismiss it.

We both say the other one is wrong and we both try argue for our side. However, I cannot see how you came to the conclusion that I have self-righteous indignation - even though you are being arrogant while saying it.

Since it is apparent that you do not want to discuss this further I would like for you to at least take a look at the following to show how illogical moral relativism is:

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self refuting.

1. All truth is relative

A. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.​

2. There are no absolute truths

A. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
B. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.​

3. What is true for you is not true for me

A. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?​

• i. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
• ii. If you say yes, then relativism is false.

B. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then​

• i. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
• ii. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?

a. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.​

b. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.​

c. If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.​

C. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.​

• i. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.

D. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.​

• i. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.

4. No one can know anything for sure

A. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.​

5. That is your reality, not mine

A. Is my reality really real?
B. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?​

6. We all perceive what we want

A. How do you know that statement is true?
B. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?​

• i. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?

• ii. Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.

7. You may not use logic to refute relativism

A. Why not?
B. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
C. If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
D. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.​

8. We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.

A. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
B. Is truth self contradictory?​

• i. If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true.

C. If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
D. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.​

• i. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.

E. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.​

• i. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.

9. Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.

A. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?​

• i. Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position?
• ii. If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?

B. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.​

Source

 

[chcr]

It is quite interesting that a man who claims that there is no real right or real wrong is saying that I'm really wrong.

I never said there was no right or wrong, I said that right or wrong are subjective, not arbitrary. Seriously, take some reading comprehension courses. I have a sense of right or wrong just like you do. I was, however, being sarcastic when I said you were wrong. See, I recognize that your individual interpretation is no more or less valid than mine. The only real difference is that I arrived at mine through personal observation while you take yours from what someone else says.

Oh, and I've told you before that I find apologistic bullshit to be apologistic bullshit (or you should) and yet you persist in trying to make your points with references you know that I think are wrong. Obtuse is really the only word that applies.

 

[Gotholic]

I never said there was no right or wrong, I said that right or wrong are subjective, not arbitrary. Seriously, take some reading comprehension courses. I have a sense of right or wrong just like you do. I was, however, being sarcastic when I said you were wrong.

I never doubted you had a conscience.

Notice I never said that you do not believe in a right or wrong but a real right or wrong. If you believed in a real right or wrong then you would have the objective view point. For a real right or wrong remains real/true regardless of independent thought. I already explained this about how some people may treat black people as less human but they will always remain as human as you and I despite how they may be treated or viewed of. Also, I explained how there is objective truth since it is impossible that God can only exist just for me and not for you.

So you say that morality is subjective but not arbitrary.

You deny that there is an objective morality (which means you deny that moral values can exist independently apart from the mind). And yet you claim that subjective morality is not arbitrary. But how can "subjective morality" appeal to some ground outside of one's own mind while "objective morality" cannot?

Now, I do acknowledge there have been differences in what is viewed as right or wrong (that is of course, obvious). But there has always been a standard and cultures have never strayed far from this standard. You obviously do not agree so I gave a lst of facts (which contained the sources), which you merely dismissed. Now the facts were presented by C.S. Lewis whom you have ill regard for - but that does not negate the facts that he presented.

By a relativist logic, the Jewish Holocaust was not objectivley wrong. Neither is killing someone because of the color of their hair.

If morality was simply subjective how would it be right for any nation to condemn the Nazi's for what they have done? The Nazi's would have to of been compared to a standard - a moral norm.

The Nazi's simply believed they were doing the world a favor by eliminating the Jews. Were the Nazis wrong only because they went against our morality? By a relativist's logic, the Nazi's were not guilty of anything since they were only going by their preference.

See, I recognize that your individual interpretation is no more or less valid than mine. The only real difference is that I arrived at mine through personal observation while you take yours from what someone else says.

The argument came to be focused about cultures not having a total difference in morality. You did not agree with that and so I provided proof of this. No one can personally observe what happened in ancient times (being 50 is not that old ). As for C.S. Lewis, I referenced him and his work, I did not express only his views as verbatim. As for the list I quoted, I put that there for you to see the various holes and contradictions to relativism.

Now don't get me wrong, I do notice that many people have their own different views of moral norms but that does not negate there are objective morals/truths in the world. It is just that some people are closer to the truth than others.

Oh, and I've told you before that I find apologistic bullshit to be apologistic bullshit (or you should) and yet you persist in trying to make your points with references you know that I think are wrong. Obtuse is really the only word that applies.

Everything I have said you think is wrong and simply dismissed. Come to think of it, you have dismissed everything I have thrown at you. I have, at least, engaged in what you have said of your defense of the subjective, while you just dismiss this and dismiss that and yawn and sigh to anything about the objective - while judging me as "obtuse". You are as genuine as you are humble.

 

[spike]

Are woman really lesser humans than men?

According to the Bible it would seem so. I guess that's not a good example of real right and wrong though.

 

[Gotholic]

According to the Bible it would seem so. I guess that's not a good example of real right and wrong though.

Not that I agree with your premise (I don't but the point is rather moot), but you are inserting a tangent here. The Bible is not being used to support any side.

 

[chcr]

By a relativist logic, the Jewish Holocaust was not objectivley wrong. Neither is killing someone because of the color of their hair.

Exactly! Do you think that most of the Nazi soldiers involved in the holocaust believed they were doing "wrong." By an absolute defintion they must have.

Everything I have said you think is wrong and simply dismissed.

Everything anyone says that I think is wrong is dismissed. It's what I do (as does everyone else). The point was that you keep using arguments that you know I will dismiss because I don't accept the original premise they're based on. This is disingenuous to the point of incapacity.Hence the term obtuse.

 

[Gotholic]

Exactly! Do you think that most of the Nazi soldiers involved in the holocaust believed they were doing "wrong." By an absolute defintion they must have.

Yes, I believe they did know it was objectively wrong. But there were other factors behind it.

Some actually believed they were doing good because they were brainwashed in doing so by constant Nazi propaganda. Others were coerced. Also, Milgram's Obedience to Authority Study showed that people will act out against their morals if instructed to do so by an authority - which correlates that the Nazi soldiers were just following orders.

People acting out against their morals does not negate a real morality.

Everything anyone says that I think is wrong is dismissed. It's what I do (as does everyone else). The point was that you keep using arguments that you know I will dismiss because I don't accept the original premise they're based on. This is disingenuous to the point of incapacity.Hence the term obtuse.

Peolpe don't just dismiss anything they don't agree with. Well, at least not the "acute" ones.

But that's all you do - just dismiss. You don't intellectually analyze or crtique anything. You just dismiss it. Of course you don't agree with the objective premise as I don't agree with the subjective one. The difference is that I don't just merely dismiss it. Yet, I'm called the "obtuse" one.

 

[chcr]

Some actually believed they were doing good because they were brainwashed in doing so by constant Nazi propaganda.

Which is just one of many considerations that makes morality subjective. You make my point for me.

But that's all you do - just dismiss. You don't intellectually analyze or crtique anything.

Sure I do, I just don't necessarily type it all out. I'm fifty years old, I've been an avowed atheist for more than thirty-five of those years. There are things that I know to be correct because I learn from my experiences and from a desire to do so. If you ever present an argument I haven't heard before (ad nauseum), I might be interested enough to do more than dismiss it. You quote "chapter and verse" pretty well but you ignore the inherent contradictions. In fact, typically you deny they even exist. Then you quote apologistic bullshit. To try to make a point. Of course I dismiss you out of hand. I'm unlikely to stop. If you don't like it, quit trying to start a debate.

 

[Professur]

Cosmic Rays Linked to Global Warming
By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 23 October 2006
06:26 am ET

Earth's recent warming trend might in part be due to a lack of starlight reaching our planet, a new study suggests. But other scientists are not so sure.

According to a theory proposed a decade ago, when a star explodes far away in the Milky Way, cosmic rays—high-speed atomic particles—go through the Earth’s atmosphere and produce ions and free electrons.

The released electrons act as catalysts and accelerate the formation of small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules, the building blocks of clouds. Therefore, cosmic rays would increase cloud cover on Earth, reflecting sunlight and keeping the planet relatively cool.

However, because the Sun’s magnetic field—which shields the Earth from these rays—doubled in intensity during the last century, there has been a reduction in cloudiness, a possible contributor to Earth’s warming.

Scientists at the Danish National Space Center mimicked chemistry of the lower atmosphere in a large reaction chamber. They created a mixture that contained gasses at realistic concentrations and used an ultraviolet lamp to act as the Sun.

Microscopic droplets, precursor to clouds, started floating in the air of the reaction chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” said team leader Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. “This is a completely new result within climate science.”

The results however, may not transfer to natural conditions outside the controlled laboratory environment.

“Studies that have evaluated the claims that global cloud cover is related to changes in cosmic rays find that if you re-examine this matter outside of the brief period which they used, the relationship falls apart,” said Raymond Bradley director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts. Bradley was not involved with the study.

The researchers agree that further study is needed to estimate the contribution of this mechanism to the recent warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.

This work does not mean that there is no human influence on climate, Svensmark told LiveScience. “But it might be necessary to revaluate the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.”

The study was detailed online this month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

source

 

[chcr]

Well, it shows that
a) The climate is clearly much more complex than the doomists want us to believe.
and
b) You gotta get on that global warming bandwagon if you're going to get funded.

 

[Gonz]

b) You gotta get on that global warming bandwagon if you're going to get funded.

Much of the reason that I love the contrasting stories. Band wagons are only good if nekkid chicks are on board.

 

[chcr]

Much of the reason that I love the contrasting stories. Band wagons are only good if nekkid chicks are on board.

Scantily clad, anyway...

 

[Professur]

http://www.jibjab.com/jokebox/jokebox/jibjab/id/328990/jokeid/87986

 

[tonksy]

Robby? I want a fish squirrel! We can keep it in the hermit crab cage.

 

[BB]

hermit crab cage ???

You guys have some kind of Gimp?

(if so ...my advice ...hang a horseshoe over the lock and never open an umbrella inside before opening the gimp cage .... oh, yeah and touch wood three times a day ...)

 

[tonksy]

Hermit crab? A crustacean that lives in a shell? At the beach?
Anyway, it's a moot point because our's all died.

 

[BB]

you seem unsure ...

(er, sorry to hear that ...)

 

[chcr]

Robby? I want a fish squirrel! We can keep it in the hermit crab cage.

No butt sex!

 

[tonksy]

Don't tell me how to live!