|
Post by Morluna on Apr 12, 2006 20:11:38 GMT -5
Um... what?
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Apr 12, 2006 20:18:58 GMT -5
That just goes to show that individuals engaging in fornication and/or malicious behavior are acting like animals.
Additionally, Morluna, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to take you seriously. If you want to engage in mature and sincere discussion, that's fine. But please leave out any vulgarity. Of course there is a time and place for satire and sarcasm, which I'm not forbidding...But please, Morluna, let's be decent.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 12, 2006 20:38:31 GMT -5
Sorry. I've generally been employing the policy that I'll respect you guys when you respect me, which hasn't happened yet, but I'll try my best. I know I posted some silly things before. My bad. Won't happen again. (Unless of course you guys start mistreating me in a ridiculous fashion again.)
Oh and, on topic... I personally think it just proves the naturality of such behavior. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 12, 2006 21:58:39 GMT -5
"My main point is, when Valentine said that she judges morality on whether something she says or does is hurtful to others, I imagine her more specific meaning was that she judges morality on whether something is hurtful and unwanted by another." This is not a credible standard for judging morality. This view espoused above is called "minimalist ethics." Basically saying "A thing is ethical as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. So, what I do in my bedroom with my boyfriend or my girlfriend, or my same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend, is nobody's business because "it doesn't hurt anybody." Part of the failure of this argument is that it presumes we are omniscient when it comes to the harm that our actions cause. How do we know it doesn't hurt anybody? There are lots of things we thought were innocuous that resulted in lots of damage. People have pre-marital sex. They get pregnant. Then they either get an abortion or carry the child to term. Either way, there are circumstances that are difficult and trying and bring harm and difficulty to other people not engaged in the original conduct--the parents, the friends, the government. In fact, the expectation of the difficulty is what prompts people to choose abortion. But this is not without cost either; the baby loses its life. You start out doing what you want because "it's not hurting anybody." All of a sudden, lots of people are getting hurt in ways you never planned nor foresaw. You see, you never really know what is going to hurt other people and what isn't. That's one of the problems with this ethic. People cast off conventional ethics and think they can build their own, so they construct this thing called the minimalist ethic and use it as a defense of their own immorality. One can do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But the ploy doesn't work. First, it presumes they know all the consequences of their actions, and they don't. Second, even if they did, the standard is inadequate. Because the standard is usually their own morals, which is no standard at all. By definition a standard is: "an acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value, a criterion." (American Heritage Dictionary) The key words in that definition being "acknowledged measure of comparison" and "criterion." Where's the criteria your morals are judged by? If you are a non-Christian, you are by necessity forced to live in some kind of contradiction because the biblical world view does, in fact, describe the way the world is in reality. If you try to live in denial of the Scriptures, your life will be a contradiction. The reason is that you are forced to live in the world God has made, and any other morality or way of life or world view that you adopt is going to be at odds with reality. That's why the minimalist ethic doesn't work. It isn't true to what is. Thanks to Greg Koukl for his outstanding work on ethics for help in this. Welcome to the thread! Sorry I haven't been able to respond sooner, but school has been taking over my life. Sheesh! I came to college to have a life, and homework is getting in the way. I'M JUST KIDDING! Anyway, I have a ton of work to do, so let's get this show on the road. Oh, and good to hear from you again Morluna, I was affraid we were going to lose you for a while. Keep in touch! You claim that " art of the failure of this argument is that it presumes we are omniscient when it comes to the harm that our actions cause." I don't think the argument that Morluna, Valentine, and I am making claims omniscience. My ethical standards are just that--standards. Just because they aren't the same as yours does not mean that they aren't standards. I would say, however, that your value system contains the same flaw which you mentioned above. Part of the failure of the Christian ethical argument is that it presumes Christians are omniscient when it comes to the harm that their actions cause. Let me give you an example or two:
Some Christians attempt to do something that they believe is morally correct. They go to a high school and call homosexuality a sin, they say that it is unnatural, and they propogate the idea that homosexuals should be shunned. Now, perhaps this is an ethical act. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume that it was peaceful and fairly civil. What the Christians don't know is the harm that their actions cause. One of the students who was at the event is shunned by friends, perhaps by family, and he decides to go jump off of an interstate overpass. He is struck by a tractor-trailer traveling at 67 miles per hour, followed by two other vehicles before traffic can be stopped. Later-on, the truck driver is unable to cope with what he has experienced and shoots himself. The parents of the dead student are distraught, their lives forever changed. This doesn't even mention the cost to the government, either. The interstate highway must be closed for a period of several hours costing much in lost time and productivity along with fuel spent idleing. As a result of this suicide, the state begins a program installing suicide prevention fencing on all highway overpasses state-wide, a multi-million dollar proposition. Because the Christians didn't know the consequences of their actions, they did something that might be considered immoral.
Or perhaps that example is too graphic. Let's try a different one:
A congregation does what it thinks is moral. It indoctrinates it's youth to despise homosexuality as an abomonation to God. They teach their members to "hate the sin." Most of the members of the congregation turn out fairly normal, but one member does the unthinkable, or perhaps not so much. He decides to cleanse the world of the sin. So he takes his father's handgun and hatchet and drives into the city. He goes into a bar with the rainbow pride flag outside. He orders a water from the bartender. After a few minutes, full of furtive glances around, he asks the bartender if this is a gay bar. With a chuckle, the bartender gestures at the patrons and says, "honey, it doesn't get gayer than this." Before he sees what is coming, two bullets are lodged in his abdomen, and he lays bleeding behind the bar. The rampage goes on. Two men sitting at the bar chatting are cut down in seconds, one with a shot in the chest, the other with one through the face. The young man hatchets a man who was playing pool in the face. As he is subdued by the crowd, a final shot fells one young woman fleeing the scene. The congregation did what they thought was moral, but perhaps it wasn't.
You know, maybe the gay analogies are too highly charged. I don't know. What I do know is that 50% of teen suicide victims are gays who are ostracised, often by their families as the last straw. What I do know is that a few months ago at a gay bar in West Virginia, a young man went on a shooting and hatcheting rampage (although my story was not meant to retell it factually, I wasn't there, and I don't have the casualty figures). Later this young man killed himself, and I believe his girlfriend, although I'm not sure about the girlfriend.
The Bible is not any better at guiding it's followers in the arena of morality. Many do things like blow up abortion clinics or assasinate doctors. Are these actions moral? I would say no, you probably would too, but I'm sure they would claim divine mandate. You see:
Knowing the future is not a requisite for understanding morality, and there is nothing fallible about avoiding injury to our fellow humans. A moral does not have to be rooted in religion. A moral is defined as 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event (i.e. the moral of the story). 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. Or 3. Rule or habit of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong. The word moral comes from the latin word for custom. Religions can create morals, so can societies, and so can people. Our morals come from our understanding of the human condition. Religions are one way of understanding that condition, but they are not the only way. You say that people can't create their own ethics because "you are by necessity forced to live in some kind of contradiction because the biblical world view does, in fact, describe the way the world is in reality. If you try to live in denial of the Scriptures, your life will be a contradiction. The reason is that you are forced to live in the world God has made, and any other morality or way of life or world view that you adopt is going to be at odds with reality." Well, since I don't believe that, you'll have to give me more proof. You also will be unable to use the phrase, "the Bible tells me so." I do not claim that the Bible is a work of fiction, as a matter of fact, I view it as a thing containing a history of human understanding from certain cultures. Of course, in that regard, I can also find truth in all works of human wisdom. I actually liked the "Catcher in the Rye," although I won't live by it. However, I will live by my set of morals which has been influenced by things that I have done in life, including acquiring knowledge from literature. And while I don't want to get into a side discussion, I don't believe that "the biblical world view does, in fact, describe the way the world is in reality." I believe in evolution. I believe that the world is round. Heaven doesn't sit on top of the Earth, behind the dome of the sky, space does. Trust me, I can watch CNN because of satellites. Don't misunderstand me though. I am not saying that you can't believe that, I am only saying that I don't. And while I believe I already answered this, I want to make sure. The criteria that my morals are judged by is my conscience.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 12, 2006 23:13:35 GMT -5
Morluna, Valentine, Trekker, Could you be wrong? I mean the fact that you so staunchly stand behind your claims and justify homosexuality you must believe that you are right with no inkling of being wrong. Well, I wholeheartedly agree with Bertrand Russell, who said that "not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." So I would say, that yes, I could be wrong, but in this case, I am not sure what it is to which you are referring. It appears that you are asking me if I could be wrong in whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. If that is indeed your question, then I would say that homosexuality is morally neutral. The same can be said for heterosexuality. There are positive, healthy relationships on both sides of the sexuality coin. There are also destructive, harmful relationships between both heterosexual and homosexual partners. I would also add that it depends on how you define what is moral. If I define morality, then no, a healthy, consentual relationship between two men, two women, or a man and a woman is not immoral. Actually, I would argue that the fact that homosexuality is a natural occurance is enough to prove that morality is subjective and that homosexuality should be considered based upon the qualities of the relationship--not the partners involved. I think Morluna explains the natural occurance of homosexuality in other species well enough, so I will leave it at that. Well, we need to work on your sentence structure, but I think I get the gist of what you are saying. Yes, I am a believer in evolution. You make a conditional argument on evolution. Your argument against homosexuality is contingent upon evolution proving it false. You make this argument with certain conditions. One of those conditions is that only male a female organisms can successfully reproduce. That is not true. Not all living species contain genders. Many of the lower life forms, which according to evolutionary theory are the root of the higher life forms, simply divide in order to reproduce, although I suppose replicate might be a better word for it. Many organisms use asexual reproduction. Some plants also use a form of asexual reproduction as well, this is called vegetative reproduction. By invalidating your conditions, I have rendered your hypothesis void, but I think that's a little unfair. What you were referring to, I believe, is the fact that humans require the genetic material from both a male and female for reproductive purposes. Your arguement, as far as I can interpolate, because you did not actually say this, is that since homosexuals are incabable of spreading their genetic material, the process of evolution would not have created any, yes? If this is indeed your arguement, it has two problems. One, homosexuals are capable of reproducing, they just aren't inclined to do so. Two, you are assuming that homosexuality is genetic, which is not proven, and is debated in most circles. The most recent studies tend to put the cause as biological rather than genetic. Even if the trait is genetic, it still could exist through evolution. I'll explain below. Ok, the hypothesis that I favor claims that homosexuality is a biologically induced condition. I explain this in what I believe is a fairly succinct post in a different thread. I will repost it at the bottom of this thread, but to answer this question, I will assume that it is genetic--again, this is a hypothesis that I disagree with, but it is also, I believe, feasible. Perhaps homosexuality is a recessive gene, or some other type of gene which, although carried by many, is only manifest in some. For instance, perhaps the gene is passed on to each of three children, but is only manifest in one of those children. As a result, the gene is passed on through the other children, but not by the homosexual children. It is also possible that the trait is manifest only every so many generations. Now, I must add that these are theories that I am suggesting at the moment, off the top of my head. I am not personally aware of studies which hypothesize a gentic cause of homosexuality, but I have a feeling that if a geneticist proposed that the human genome contains a gene which controls homosexuality, they would have an explination as to how the gene could be passed on. And remember my earlier argument. Gays are capable of reproduction. A gay male's sperm can fertilize a woman's egg, either through intercourse or in vitro fertilization. Another element which you have failed to consider is the Kinsey scale, which charts all people's sexuality along a continuum from 0-6, 0 being exclusively heterosexual, 6 being exclusively homosexual. Almost no one falls on 0 or 6. Therefore, it is possible that this homosexuality gene could be passed on through bisexual persons. Once again, I disagree with this theory, but I suppose it is possible. Well, I could argue that if all humans followed your moral code, we wouldn't exist either. After all, pre-marital sex is always immoral, right? Well, who married Adam and Eve? What about incest, also always immoral, right? Well, what about Adam and Eve's children? Anyway, I suppose it is possible that some species existed that had only homosexual members, so they died off, and we will never know about them. In the evolutionary process, however, it wasn't like two (and only two) humans popped into existence. Humans evolved from homo erectus, and it is likely that more than just one pair evolved, so even if one of the first of homo sapiens was homosexual, it would not have jeapordized the race as a whole. Well, I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the Bible is right. First off, there are so many translations, and pesky questions like, do we include the apocrypha? Anyway, I believe that the Bible is the Judeo-Christian attempt at explaining the human condition, and it is just as valid as the religious books of other religions. Your assumptions also limit God. God only spoke once (when the KJV Bible fell from the sky written by God's own hand in King's English) and God no longer speaks. It is also not the only consistent or logical guide to life. I would argue that the Q'uran and the Eightfold Path are good examples of attempts at explaining the human condition. And, I love how you assume that I've never read the Bible. I have read most of it, if not all of it cover-to-cover, and I was raised in a Christian home. My parents are Christians, and we went to church. As a matter of fact, I still attend church regularly, about 4 times a week. Here is the post I mentioned above: I would like to add somthing else to add on the debate about how homosexuality is caused. And I must start off by saying that no one is completely sure as to how it is caused. The theory that I think is most probable claims that the main factors in generating homosexuality are biological. Basically, the brain is "sexed" or perhaps I should say "oriented" at some point in the womb. Most of the time, this "sexing" is consistent with the genetically determined gender of the embryo. However, 5-10% of the time, it is believed that this "sexing" is inconsistent. Thus, a child born with an inconsistent orientation is homosexual. You must remember that the most important sex organ in the body is the brain. This hypothesis also explains the differences in sexuality for identical twins, who, of course, share the same DNA. If a certian enzyme or hormone is introduced in the womb to one embryo, but not the other, it could explain their differing sexualities. You might ask, of course, don't twins share the same womb? Yes they do, but I believe that they have seperate placentas. If you'd like more info, 60 Minutes recently did a story on it. It can be found at: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtmlA second post, an addendum if you will: wanderingtrekker, there has also been evidence in support of a correlation between homosexuality and number of older brothers, suggesting that perhaps something happens to the womb with each pregnancy with a male fetus. This correlation, I believe was present whether the brothers were raised together or not, discounting environmental factors. With identical twins, I think your theory is a good one, though I definitely believe the environmental differences play a role (with identical twins raised apart, you can safely say that almost any difference will be environmental). Yes, that is correct. It was mentioned in the 60 minutes article as well, but I should have pointed it out just in case others on the board didn't visit the site. Incidentally, the show chronicles a pair of pre-adolescent identical twins who were raised together from birth. One acts normally (likes cars, GI Joes), the other plays with dolls and paints his nails. Remember that these children are both younger than puberty, so any sexual awakening has yet to occur. Therefore one twin exhibits "extreme gender non-conformity" but not homosexuality. It is very likely that he will be gay, however, when he grows up. This, I think, lessens the impact of environment, although I think it still plays a role.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 12, 2006 23:16:03 GMT -5
Are you certain of this?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 12, 2006 23:20:36 GMT -5
HAHA!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 12, 2006 23:30:00 GMT -5
Make sure you are following someone who knows where he's going.
Bertrand Russell was certainly not certain of anything, as he said himself in the quote you gave.
For all his stature as a philosopher, Russell cannot be said to have been sure of himself and consistent in his views regarding reality (metaphysics) or knowledge (epistomology). In his early years he adopted the Hegelian idealism taught by F. H. Bradley. Influenced by G. E. Moore, he changed to Platonic theory of ideas. Challenged by Ludwig Wittgenstein that mathematics consists merely of tautologies, he turned to metaphysical and linguistic atomism. He adopted the extreme realism of Alexius Meinong, only later to turn toward logical constructionism instead. Then following the lead of William James, Russel abandoned mind-matter dualism for the theory of neutral monism. Eventually Russel propounded materialism with fervor, even though his dissatisfaction with his earlier logical atomism left him without an alternative metaphysical account of the object of our emperical experiences. Struggling with philosphical problems not unlikes those which stymied David Hume, Russell conceded in his later years that the quest for certainty is a failure.
Again, was Russell certain that the quest for certainty was a failure? How could he be certain of this uncertainty?
My point, if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into a ditch. Truth comes from God. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 12, 2006 23:52:23 GMT -5
Jesse, your grammatical style has improved greatly. I wasn't aware that you were such a fan of Bertrand Russell, and only a fan would have so much knowledge on hand.
Lots of people change their views over time. It doesn't make someone a bad or erratic person to have a concept of existence which evolves over time as the person journies along the path that is life.
My understanding of theology is not the same today as it was 3 years ago. Does that mean that I don't have anything intelligent to say? I don't follow Bertrand Russell, but he said many intelligent things. I would be less inclined to believe what someone said if they knew for certain what the meaning of life was at age 21 and that meaning didn't change over his lifetime to reflect new experiences.
You know, when I follow someone who knows where they're going, they always seem to show an amazing lack of knowledge as to where I'm going. And when you are too focused on the place to which you are going, you miss all of the scenery along the way. The journey to spiritual fulfillment does not seek to arrive at the end of a well-marked highway as soon as possible, but to take whichever roads you choose and grow spiritually along the way. The point of the journey is not the destination, but the journey.
I am on that journey. I follow no one. I wander, I go where each path takes me, and I tend to, at junctions, take the road less travelled. I am on a trek, but I am not lost.
The Road Not Taken Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 12, 2006 23:57:46 GMT -5
You need to take up your cross, deny yourself, and follow Christ.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 13, 2006 0:01:36 GMT -5
And why should I do that? And please give me something more in depth than "the Bible says so."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 13, 2006 0:09:36 GMT -5
If you do not have the ultimate presupposition of "in the beginning God" you are reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity.
How foolish it is to believe in rationality if you claim there is no god, as Russell did in his essays "Why I'm not a Christian."
If your ultimate starting point is not God, you have no reasonable reason to believe in reason, no logical explaination to believe in logic. You cannot say that these things even exist.
A Christian has reason to believe in reason. A Christian is logical to believe in logic. Because we believe in a reasonable, logical God who created us in His image. However an unbeliever has no reason to believe in rationality. They cannot even be certain that such a thing exists.
Notice how Russell here is simply assuming rationality. But how can he be certain that such a thing exists? He is reduced to absurdity.
Not only does an unbelievers metaphysics contradict his epistomology, but it also does not comport or concur with his ethics.
It's absurd to say there is any sort of universal moral standard by which all men should abide by if there is not a universal law giver. You cannot condemn Hitler or Osama or the Crusades if there is not an outside source (outside of the individual and the society) for any ethical principles or a code of conduct.
But Christ was not just another philospher. The difference between Jesus Christ and the men like Aristole, Socrates, Plato, is the difference between an inquiry and a revelation. These philosphers had a great deal of questions, Jesus had a lot of answers. These philosphers attempted to find the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
You must do what is right because it is right. Worship God because He is worthy. You must repent of your sins and believe the gospel because God says so. Only God is in the authoritative position to dictate any sort of universal command. God says turn.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 13, 2006 0:39:02 GMT -5
With all due respect you are the one who came onto a Christian forum and espoused your belief. Rules of debate etiquette require the "antagonist" to prove their position then the "host" defends and rebuts.
If I walked into an "Evolutionary Scientists" convention and stood up and said "Evolution is false. It's fiction and I don't believe in it!" You can imagine that the one having to defend their position in that crowd would be me. I went into their territory and stirred up a hornet's nest...they didn't come into mine.
It's the same way in the court of law. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those bringing the charges have to prove their side.
Soooooo.....you came into our territory, the burden of proof is on you. Have at it. I'm listening.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 13, 2006 1:41:32 GMT -5
You've contradicted yourself my dear. That usually happens when people's humanistic arguments begin to unravel like a poorly knitted sweater.
Earlier you said this...
Then you said this...
So is there NONE or is there between .02% to 7% risk?There does exist a risk of pregnancy. Not to mention STDs. Do think all the people you've been with have been totally honest with you about this?
Let's take that .02% and make it real for us shall we? There are approximately 14 million American women using hormonal contraceptives each year. The failure rate which is caluculated for these contraceptives is based on a yearly average. So, with a .02% failure rate as you stated, that leaves 2,800 pregnancies occuring each year as a result of failed contraception. And that's a conservation number because I was just factoring in only hormonal contraception. Some hormonal contraception has a higher failure rate so that 2,800 would actually be higher. That's minimally 2,800 women, like yourself, each year who are on contraceptives who think they have no chance (or a slim one) of getting pregnant yet they do.
Anytime anyone has sex (married or unmarried) the risk for pregnancy is there. We may be able to reduce that risk, yes. But we can't eliminate it all together. Therefore the risk of hurting someone physically (you have no assurances of emotionally) is still there. One of the departments I worked in at a busy private clinic was OB/GYN and I could tell you stories about women who came in pregnant who had used contraception. I'll bet you probably even know someone who got pregnant even while using contraception. The risks are there like it or not.
Actually, other people's pre-marital sex hurts me. Yep, that's right, it hurts me. Why? Because of the rise in premarital, extramarital sex and homosexual sex there has been a correlative rise in the incidence of STDs. That rise in STDs has caused the American government to spend billions to fund research and development to find drugs and cures to fight these diseases. Diseases that most likely wouldn't exist at all if people just kept it "zipped" until they were married. Those billions of dollars come from my taxes. Money that could be spent for other things. One of my best friends has ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease)-what if all that STD research money was redirected to find a cure for that and they could find a cure sooner because they had more money to conduct more research? What if my friend dies before they find a cure for ALS because their isn't enough money to fund the research? Money that could have been used to save my friend's life if it didn't have to be spent for STD research.
If only people weren't so selfish in having to satisfy their lusts and expect us to pay for the consequences.
So, premarital sex does hurt me. Unplanned pregnancy or not.
The laws and regulations God sets forth in His Word aren't to be "a big wet blanket" on our fun. They are to protect us from unnecessary hurt (physical, emotional and spiritual). It's like a parent telling a child not to fill up on candy before dinner. The kid may think the parent is being a kill joy but if the child doesn't get his nutrients he won't grow and be healthy. It doesn't mean the kid won't get his sweets, but he just has to wait for the appropriate time and in the appropriate context.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 13, 2006 1:55:10 GMT -5
If you do not have the ultimate presupposition of "in the beginning God" you are reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity. Ok, I am going to guess that you are not a Latin scholar. So far I have noticed that you use this particlar phrase over and over: "reductio ad absurdium." Is this to make your argument seem smarter? Each time you quote the Latin phrase, you immediately follow it with it's english translation. If you want to say that someone is reduced to absurdity, you should just do it in English, because you are doing it improperly in Latin. The phrase in Latin does not mean that you are "reduced to absurdity" it is the "reduction to absurdity" of a logical supposition. People cannot be " reductio ad absurdum" (And that is the appropriate spelling, there is no "i" in absurdum). Only arguements can be reductio ad absurdum. Again, you are using the phrase inappropriately. The way it works is like this. In order to disprove a hypothesis, one makes a logical supposition from that hypothesis and then disproves it. Take this example: There is nothing wrong with speeding. Therefore: People should not be fined for speeding. Therefore: There is no reason to obey the law. Thus, because statement 3 is absurd, the hypothesis must also be absurd. Therefore the statement "There is nothing wrong with speeding" is reductio ad absurdum by the statement "there is no reason to obey the law." The trick is that this argumentative tool can only be used if people agree that the statement (not the hypothesis) is actually absurd. Your argument assumes that it is absurd not to believe in your God, but since 66% of the world population is not identified as Christian, although you'll probably want to add Catholics to that list, since you don't consider them Christians, I think it is absurd for you to say that you cannot be rational if you are not using YHWH as your starting place. For instance: Unbelievers have no reason to believe that rationality exists. Therefore: Unbelievers will be unable to make rational decisions with any certainty of outcome Therefore: If I am an unbeliever and I am cold and the window is open, I would not be able to make the rational decision to close the window, while a Christian in the room under the same conditions would realize that the window merely needed to be closed in order to increase the temperature. I think that most people would argue that that last statement is absurd. Therefore the hypothesis "Unbelievers have no reason to believe that rationality exists" is reductio ad absurdum. Hypothesis: "If your ultimate starting point is not God, you have no reasonable reason to believe in reason, no logical explaination to believe in logic. You cannot say that these things even exist." (Quoting Jesse) Therefore: Unbelievers have no reason to use rationality, since they have no reason to believe in it. Therefore: Unbelievers are uncapable of using rationality and logic. Therefore: Non-Christians did not invent any tools of reason. Threfore: Arabs did not invent the number zero. Therefore: Arabs also did not invent algebra. Or: If they did invent zero and algebra, then these things are not products of rationality. Are these statements not absurd? I believe this explains the concept of reductio ad absurdum. And, yes, I can say that. I believe that I explained that concept earlier in this thread. Although I imagine you will find a smattering of this understanding throughout my posts. Yeah, and Pharaoh said he was God. Besides which, the Gospel of John was written sometime between 95-105CE, over six decades after Jesus of Nazareth's execution. Had the writer of this gospel given an eyewitness account, he would have had to have been at least 90 when it was written. That is very rare today, it was unheard of back then. Very little of the red print in John can be attributed as the actual words of Jesus. And again, my question is how do you know what is right? How do you know that there is a God, let alone that God is 'worthy'? How do you know that God says I must repent? How do you know that if there is a God, that God is in an authoritative position? How do you know what God dictates? How do you know that God says 'turn'? How, for that matter, do you know that God is a 'he'? How can you limit God to a human gender? Once again, I am looking for something beyond "it's in the Bible" as a response. If you use only the Bible as your source, I will make the following argument, so be forewarned. X is true because the Bible says so. Therefore: The Bible must be absolutely true, all the time, literally Therefore: The Bible must contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Not to mention, that all of the truth is in there. If I have not made it clear through my other posts, I consider this proposition, therefore your argument is reductio ad absurdum.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 13, 2006 1:57:39 GMT -5
You've contradicted yourself my dear. That usually happens when people's humanistic arguments begin to unravel like a poorly knitted sweater. Earlier you said this... Then you said this... So is there NONE or is there between .02% to 7% risk?There does exist a risk of pregnancy. Not to mention STDs. Do think all the people you've been with have been totally honest with you about this? That's not what she said. She didn't say that there was NO CHANCE of getting pregnant in her first quote, she said that there was NO REASON to RUN THE RISK of pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 8:06:15 GMT -5
It's the same way in the court of law. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those bringing the charges have to prove their side. Soooooo.....you came into our territory, the burden of proof is on you. Have at it. I'm listening. Ohhhh man. Oh puh- leaze. Sweetie, the burden of proof is on you to prove that something DOES exist, not on me to prove that it doesn't. Because, in the first place, all I'm saying is that you can't prove either way, not that god does not exist. Honestly, this is a pretty widely accepted fact in religious debate: the burden of proof is on those who hold that god exists. You can't prove that something doesn't exist. Ever heard of the Invisible Cat? Please stop insulting my intelligence. I need to prove nothing. My entire faith is based on the assumption that this cannot be done. Also, this is getting off topic. ...Unless god is heterosexual. For the record, I came on these boards because y'all are hysterical and you make me laugh till I cry. This is sincerely one of the greatest websites I have found all year. I'm only frightened during the times in which I think about the fact that there are real people behind the computer screen. PS: You are the one who brought up my religion and asked me to justify my lack of belief in god. I didn't come here to talk about that. PPS: Oh WOW, Trekker. What an amazing post, i.e. your Latin lecture. ::giggle:: Gad, IM me sometime, seriously.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 13, 2006 9:36:53 GMT -5
Actually, that's exactly what she said. She said there is no reason to run the risk of pregnancy. Unless your contraception is 100% you run the risk of pregnancy having sex using that contraception. And since no contraception can claim 100% (other than abstinence)then the risk of pregnancy is run when you have sex using that contraception.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 13, 2006 9:40:01 GMT -5
Sweetie, the quote you pulled from was about why you believe the Bible is fiction, not about the existence of God. And they are two different things.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 10:11:54 GMT -5
You constantly come to us with a presupposition that the Bible is false, yet you tell us to be opened minded? Is there not a contradiction here, are you not being a hypocrite?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 13, 2006 12:52:53 GMT -5
Actually, that's exactly what she said. She said there is no reason to run the risk of pregnancy. Unless your contraception is 100% you run the risk of pregnancy having sex using that contraception. And since no contraception can claim 100% (other than abstinence)then the risk of pregnancy is run when you have sex using that contraception. Ok, I understand your point. I think we should allow Morluna to comment on her statements, though. At any rate, there are certain ways where you can engage sexual intercourse without incurring any risk of pregnancy, although these do not protect against STIs.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 14:02:02 GMT -5
Your opinion, not mine. My opinion[/i][/u] is that I should no more live by the Bible than I should live by The Catcher in the Rye or The Good Earth. It's fiction to me. Nothing more. I really shouldn't have to keep saying this, but I'll forgive you because I believe you are new. [/quote] Luvofchrist and evanschaible: I've never said that this wasn't strictly my personal opinion, nor have I ever insinuated that I thought you should share my opinion. I have brought it up to explain my feelings when I get quotes from the Bible thrown at me as if they are law, and as if I should lend any moral weight to what they say. The only time I bring it up is when I get the repeated message of "IT'S WRONG BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!" from you or your cohorts. I would simply like to see one of you, even once, justify your claims to this agnostic who does not accept the Bible-- without using the Bible as evidence. But I suspect that is not to be. And yet again, this is highly off-topic. Any heterosexuals want to answer the questions posed? I have yet to see your answers, luvofchrist. Unless, of course, you are actually not heterosexual. In which case, of course these are not applicable to you.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 13, 2006 16:02:16 GMT -5
To say "prove the bible without using the bible" is as absurd as saying "prove the bible is wrong without using the bible". Or like saying "prove my statement to be false without reading my statement."
At some point, to try and prove or disprove the bible, one must look and see what the claims of the bible actually are.
Could you prove science is true without using science? Could you prove reason is good without using reason? Could you prove history is accurate without using history?
I'm sure you see my point.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 17:15:23 GMT -5
Prove the president is in the whitehouse, but dont look in the whitehouse.
I wonder if maybe atheists want to stay ignorant? I think they love their sin to much and they think if they dont belive in God that means he isnt there. One day we all have to give an account, whether you believe it or not.
You say you are agnostic! You are doing nothing more than creating a God to suit your sin. It is called idolatry. No idolater will inherit the kingdom of heaven!
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 17:31:23 GMT -5
ARGH, you guys. Can we stay on topic, please?
Justify your claims that homosexuality is wrong without using the Bible, please. When did I say that I thought you should prove that the Bible is the word of god without using the Bible? I asked the same question that was asked of me when I was (randomly, by the way) attacked. I honestly have no interest in discussing the validity of the Bible since I don't believe it can be proven and therefore feel that it would be a very boring argument.
I'm so sick of all these "teehee, look, LOGIK!" arguments against atheism. They make absolutely no sense and do not apply to me, anyway.
But that is not on topic either. If you want to talk about homosexuality being a sin or the Bible being the word of god, how about making a thread to do just that, and then if others are interested in discussing it, they can post there? This thread is about the morality of heterosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 17:38:37 GMT -5
The very anatomy of a human beings reprodctive system proves that heterosexuality is the natural way of being. Can a man get another man pregnant? You are forced to anser NO. Therefore, it cannot be a good thing.
What is the group with the highest amount of AIDS cases in the united states? The male homosexuals.
Reproduction is not possible within a homosexual relationship, therefore IT IS WRONG.
the subject of morality cannot even be discussed apart from God. And of you say to the contrary, PROVE IT WITHOUT USING SECULAR LITERATURE!
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 17:46:09 GMT -5
Reproduction is not possible within a homosexual relationship, therefore IT IS WRONG. ...wow. So I guess sterile people should just kill themselves since they obviously have no value in this world, right? And if not, they definitely shouldn't be in a relationship. That would be one less baby! We can't have that!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 17:48:33 GMT -5
Your signature talks of a grand design. What is the grand design behind homosexuality?
Oh, who mentioned suicide? You are truly a troll. I think it is very odd that when athiests and lost sinners get backed into a corner they bite and turn to personal attacks. It isnt my fault that your stance holds no weight, prove your stance the same way you want us to prove ours, without using your literature. If we cant use the Bible, then you cant use secular literature, it is only fair.
REPENT AND TURN OR FOREVER BURN GOD GIVES GRACE IF YOU SEEK HIS FACE CHRIST THE SON HE'LL SAVE YOU NOW BUT AT HIS YOU NEED TO BOW
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 17:55:18 GMT -5
Your signature talks of a grand design. What is the grand design behind homosexuality? Oh, who mentioned suicide? You are truly a troll. REPENT AND TURN OR FOREVER BURN GOD GIVES GRACE IF YOU SEEK HIS FACE Ooo, I was just waiting for somebody to comment on the signature! I'll let you think about it a little harder. Because your interpretation is slightly off. Seriously, don't feel bad: I had to listen to the song several times before I got it (I'm actually not being sarcastic, really; I thought they were serious, too). Yeah, I'm a troll. This isn't my usual online handle for that express reason. But I'm a nice, smart one who doesn't use capslock. And if you're nice to me, I really will be nice to you. AIM me sometime!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 13, 2006 17:59:37 GMT -5
Still you are mute to my questions, and still you have yet to prove anything away from you precious science. Like I said, prove your view with no science, wince we cant use the Bible. Read my previous post again, I modified it just for you.
|
|