HOME | DD

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 17:51:46 +0000 UTC]

The thing is that the hypothesis doesn't lead to a false conclusion, because it is usually based on an initial observation. Then if an experiment is properly designed, it tells you whether your hypothesis is correct or not. If the hypothesis is correct then the inquisitive line is over. However, if the hypothesis is incorrect, then one rethinks their hypothesis based on observations, or creates a completely new hypothesis based on what was observed.

To quote Isaac Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 18:26:43 +0000 UTC]

I'm more than familiar with that quote, although I'd wonder if that's how most scientists felt. Indeed Aristotle claimed that science was in many instances "looking at the world and at many things to be wondered at," (Physics II.i, I think).

Here's the thing. It is no doubt we have many experiences, and as you from the scientific method there can be no room for error, unless there is error.

I'll explain:

The initial observation may be skewed. Far more still within that observation that leads to a hypothesis can be tempered by some inclination of "what I want to get out of this."

No one goes into an experiment or a method such as this without some anticipation of an end, in fact the Greek word hypothesis means a principle or a guideline for action(hupo-thesis, a foundation, supposition; that which is laid down as a rule of action). If that hypothesis is proven wrong, then the principle for action was proven wrong, and if right, we continue until it's incorrect.

In many aspects this is perfectly fine. In our diet, for example, we can eat a certain type of food up until our body rejects it because of disease, diet, etc. In science too, this method has been very successful because it follows a standard for life---do an action and make little adjustments until the proper result is achieved; this applies to sports as much as it does science.

Yet when we put a great deal of faith in our principle for action, it is difficult to interpret the results of unforeseen conclusions--where do we move from the time we say "that's funny...."? The answer is another hypothesis, however educated, is still a principle by which we assume this and that are true. Yet even Einstein said that imagination, chance, and assumption make up the scientific model and that wonder and confusion are just as much a part of the scientific process as results are (reinforcing your Asimov quote above).


Now, this is getting long, so forgive me for not being elaborate and choosing the shorter path.

What I'm getting at is that the scientific method has undeniable positives attached to it; nothing is better than careful observation, but the far more dangerous hypothesis is the one that attributes that this method is comprehensive, that it can discover everything. Again, not to detract from what we have discovered to be true and not true by means of science, the method has its very foundation is setting principles and verifying them---a sound method for both thought and physical research alike---but at that point we must interpret all conclusions according to that hypothesis, and in that sense we may be dead wrong (remember phrenology?). Likewise, knowledge is good, but the implementation of knowledge is not in the purview of the scientific method, and that is why science is not comprehensive. Data, as with anything, can be abused for new hypotheses and theories. Indeed, many theories established today simply cannot be abused, but this does not excuse the method for the very human element of that method's "use."

Well, I said I was going long and wrote a whole other paragraph. Sorry.

I hope my reservation seems fair.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 19:22:04 +0000 UTC]

The thing is that It's difficult to understand what reservations you have with the scientific method, so I'll try to break it down piece by piece.





the thing is that that first observation is the "that's strange" moment. you are correct that the hypothesis and experiment can be skewed by personal prejudice, but this is why experiments are not taken at face value alone, must be repeated and be peer reviewed it can be considered valid. This is how we circumvent private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence (ala richard dawkins). Peer review is as much a part of the scientific method as any other step.






Well, this is partially fallacious, as again, the use of impartial 3rd parties to verify the conclusions by examining, performing and refining the experiment are required before it is accepted, just as their revisions must be publicly verified by third parties as well.






Again, there is no 'proper' result, only proper procedure in science, and secondary verification prevents someone trying to get a 'proper' result.






This is completely true, however these are so ingrained into human nature that they are givens in the scientific method. The reason we make the assumption it is true when devising the experiment is because that is how we determine what conditions validate and invalidate the hypothesis. The simplest way to put it is that the scientific method is a way of expanding on our natural curiosity by giving a structure to work with.




What I'm getting at is that the scientific method has undeniable positives attached to it; nothing is better than careful observation, but the far more dangerous hypothesis is the one that attributes that this method is comprehensive, that it can discover everything. Again, not to detract from what we have discovered to be true and not true by means of science, the method has its very foundation is setting principles and verifying them---a sound method for both thought and physical research alike---but at that point we must interpret all conclusions according to that hypothesis, and in that sense we may be dead wrong (remember phrenology?). Likewise, knowledge is good, but the implementation of knowledge is not in the purview of the scientific method, and that is why science is not comprehensive. Data, as with anything, can be abused for new hypotheses and theories. Indeed, many theories established today simply cannot be abused, but this does not excuse the method for the very human element of that method's "use.">

Well, that's the thing. Assuming that the scientific method needs to have a method of controlling how it's data is used to be comprehensive is fallacious, as science is a tool for obtaining information, not a method for applying information. Obtaining and Applying information are two extremely different things. To quote Michael Shermer, "Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works." (this doesn't mean it is the absolute best method that could exist, just the best method we've come up with so far.) Science does what it was designed to do and and should not be expected to do more.




I hope my reservation seems fair.>

I hope this clarifies a bit about your reservations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 19:44:04 +0000 UTC]

Sometimes my reservations about the scientific method are those who apply them. There's no need to explain each step, either now or in the future, as I know the method, but as you said "this doesn't mean it is the absolute best method that could exist, just the best method we've come up with so far" which causes me pause to wonder if this is the best scientific attitude.... but perhaps a discussion for another day.


A) It's interesting you should bring up Richard Dawkins as his books, especially the God Delusion, is factually fair--i.e., the data is good--- but that his logic, should one form it as logically formal, and his method for implementing the data is really quite terrible. It's a case of "getting information" but thinking one can apply that information to a perspective outside of its purview. Again, a conversation for another topic.

B)3rd party verification:

yes, but only if we can assume each third party is honest. but let's not go down that road, but assume that every third-party will honestly apply the scientific method within its proper means---this still does not escape application which, when you remove that from the method, it makes the scientific method a closed system.

"Again, there is no 'proper' result, only proper procedure in science, and secondary verification prevents someone trying to get a 'proper' result."

Although I might question what a hypothesis is meant to represent if this is the case. But you speak about this later, so let's look further:

"The reason we make the assumption it is true when devising the experiment is because that is how we determine what conditions validate and invalidate the hypothesis. The simplest way to put it is that the scientific method is a way of expanding on our natural curiosity by giving a structure to work with."

Very well spoken. We must take something as the case and through rigorous use of reason and experience validate it as true or not--the same is true with the mind as it is in science.



I suppose I should have been clearer about my reservations. Any hypothesis ought to carry with it some skepticism, but some optimism also. Purely human observation, free from tools or data, can be quite powerful after all.

My biggest reservation is 'to what degree to people who employ this method believe it to be' or in other words does one expect this method to be exhaustible to every moment and sense of wonder that we have. I would claim no. Given your quote at the end, it puts me more at ease about your view of science.


So, I'm no anti-science guy, nor am I ignorant as to what this method is, but I figured I'd engage in this simple inquiry.

Thanks for obliging me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 19:50:18 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome, it' really got my brain working again for a little bit.

Though I can say that the more experience and understanding of how the scientific method works one has, the less one believes that science is the absolute end all, be all of information.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 20:16:21 +0000 UTC]

That's a fine statement in itself.

I was reading over Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences where he looks at Galileo, (Newton, sort of), and Descartes where he looks at the birth of this scientific method, which in itself is more modern than some people give it credit for.

That in itself is very fascinating to see what went into conceiving the method we know today as it is.

ideas in their own right have archeological digs, but you can sit in your chair while doing it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 20:25:31 +0000 UTC]

well, nowadays you can, but didn't used to be as easy. Which is what makes the development of the method all the more amazing.

(BTW, I usually recommend this to people as a skepticism/research reasoning primer [it's also where the Shermer quote comes from] [link] )

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 20:36:11 +0000 UTC]

Well, at the very least I don't need a primer.

I'm skeptical of this video, ironically, especially as it reduces all knowledge to points on a chart.

As for the scientific method, however, this seems like a fair video, but the prejudice against ethics (and religion, we may easily assume with Dawkins) creeps its way not into words (as people believe a lot of bullshitty stuff too) but presentation.

I'm still of the opinion a great deal of perspective creeps in, because modern science is based on a lot of skepticism concerning knowledge dating back to Hume, Descartes, and Galileo.

As a philosophy person, and not a scientist--only one somewhat read in it--the use of "logic" and "reason" are very loaded terms.

Interesting video though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 20:46:36 +0000 UTC]

I know you don't need a primer, I was recommending it should you ever need to give one to someone.

And the thing is that reducing the points to a chart is what a primer is for.

And true, those are loaded terms nowadays similar to how faith is used as a loaded term at times, though in this case the usage is warranted.

As for the ethics statement, I didn't really see anything really going against ethics in general, may I ask what you are referring to there? (The religion thing is a given though, because it is similar to the things referred to there, but it isn't questioned)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 20:53:14 +0000 UTC]

Ha, I was simply thinking out loud as I watched the video.

It makes me sad that people don't believe religion is questioned by those who practice it as if we were never rigorous or thoughtful---and if that only partly so.

I will agree that the term faith, as they extend it, is warranted, at least to a degree.

As for ethics in general, since secular humanism has been on the rise, there is little desire to see a moral grounding for ethics save "sympathy" which is the popular term. Likewise, secular humanism, to rant briefly, has a lot of self-destructive tendencies, or at the very least very relativistic ones.

I dunno about that being a video for beginners, however, as it has a very clear tone of reducing all knowledge to the method they propose--again, once science creeps into ethics, epistemology, and so forth it can run into problems for verification.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 21:08:22 +0000 UTC]

Of course it is questioned, but the thing is it rarely comes under major scrutiny by those who follow it.

Well, secular humanism is somewhat based around some of the principles found in evolutionary biology, specifically with social organisms. Most of our moral standings from from ingrained perceptions that are key to our survival as a species. One of those traits is empathy.

The videos refer to extreme/suspicious claims requiring inquiry, and doesn't really cover ethics. if anything it doesn't say use the method to disprove an ethical claim, but rather the reasoning behind an ethical claim.

As for science coming into ethics, you can't test ethics, but you should use scientific knowledge when developing a moral code.

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 21:24:21 +0000 UTC]

The first statement is quite the generalization.

The second statement is perhaps what it has become, but if there are biological prompts for our moral activity, I fail to see this as reasonably applying to the world we live in. Empathy is really, then, just a construct used but I would have to examine what claims are made under empathy to speak more clearly on it.

And from the third I can't find much to back up their stance on an ethical claim based on their system alone. Historically it's simply not true nor has it been tested yet to show otherwise.




_______________
The link is not a very good exposition. His stance that "moral absolutism" is not really an argument but rather a show of modern cultural trends. What he fails to grasp, or rather, what he wants other to subscribe to, is that absolutism is always black and white, as opposed to its principles being black and white. He is really arguing against principles of protestantism or Kantian ethics.

Ethical dilemas that he brings up are limited. Thus he merely shoehorns religion as absolutism. And thus "evidence based" world-view is seen as superior to that of a religious one primarily on the prejudice that it is a 'sickening disease' and a 'superstician.' To this I would have to disagree, especially as this video says "it never made anyone more happy, [etc., etc.]" to which I would disagree whole hartedly, especially since much of the theory behind secular humanism is based on the humanism defined and carried out by Christians, in many senses, throughout history. I just think his treatment is a bit unfair.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-16 21:46:26 +0000 UTC]

That's the thing, Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.

So to say that moral absolutism does not deal with black and white in practice is to ignore exactly what moral absolutism stands for to begin with.


Furthermore it is generally accepted that a good portion of religions call for moral absolutism, however this is not the same as saying the followers call for moral absolutism.

Evidence based morality is superior to a morality on the basis of superstition, as with superstition based morality, there is no standard for justification of ethics. A good example is the levitical laws that few follow due to the fact that it lacks proper justification for it's reasoning outside of "the supreme being claims it to be good or bad"

You fail to differentiate followers from the religions themselves, as the followers use a combination of absolute morality taken from religion and evidence based morality for other points.


Can you give a good reason as to why a religious basis for morality is superior to evidence based morality?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-16 22:27:59 +0000 UTC]

Or you failed to read what I said about principles of moral absolutism as opposed to specific contexts.

Stealing is wrong when we frame it as stealing as such--and in this case murder is the same. Yet within the very fabric of this moral "absolutism" there is admission that, say, if a man is starving and he steals bread he 1) is forced by his basic human needs to eat and thus, because he doesn't act freely (for all moral acts to have personal weight they must be "free" according to religion, at least my religion), and thus he doesn't necessarily steal. 2) Murder in the same way is always wrong, unless it's self-defense. Once again someone is put in a situation where it is "kill" or "be killed unjustly" then the option is to defend one's life. because he was forced into this situation it is no crime. Any choice made by violence or force is not a choice at all, at least as we Catholics hold. The same goes for faith and other works.


So no, it deals with black and white principles, such as "the dignity of all human life" and "freedom to pursue one's moral end" but its application obviously varies from person to person, otherwise how would one uphold an individual's dignity or claim that to choose the good one must know it and pursue it. As such, the moral anchor of 'the Good' is the absolute, and this concept is fleshed out by the wisdom of past ages, but also discerned and discovered via rational discourse and experience.

The absolutism you refer to, again, is what, ironically, may be called "absolute absolutism" which believes all lives are defined by means of black and white, and a stance which is rightly criticized.

A good number of religions do, but not all, nor should religion be equated unfairly with a now negative term of "absolutism" as if we were dictators. It is true that a religion calls for certain moral action and religious principles urge one to act a certain way, but as each man if free, how he implements them can either coincide with that message or in infinitely varying shades disagree. Simple moral absolutes like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "forgive others as you would wish to be forgiven by God" are very clear and offer the full spectrum of actions, for "those who live by the sword shall die by it."

What you say about levitical laws is merely a lack of understanding about them or even the laws that were co-present at that time. the 10 commandments were quite an achievement, compared to contemporary laws of its time and the laws of the Greeks (i.e., Aristotle and Plato) and New Testament likewise.

I never once failed to consider followers and religion though this may be your assumption. They indeed pick and choose, and who can stop them. Of course, the morality you adhere to came second and very much so picked and chose from the morality present--such is life.

On that last part, are you trying to trick me in proposing some evidence for religious-based morality? I assume no, but it's a funny wording.

But no, it's no trick at all. The difference is that religion-based morality does call for evidence in human action and does not deny experience. However evidence based morality is still based on some moral good, usually that of utility (in the end) mind you, and although evidence based morality tries to verify its claims it must ultimately establish a principle for itself (a hypothesis, you might say).
That being said Religion establishes its law, such as the dignity of all men, and from there builds a structure around that singular point. For evidence-based structures to do that they do they must establish some pillars, whether willingly or not, and thus build an infrastructure based on that.
Yet the greater weakness is that it merely borrows from Christian-Catholic moral laws, chooses which are "beneficial for mankind as a special" and discards the others "as superstitious." You have only to look at Dawkins' own book and his brother's book in response to him to see this at play.
As such, the weakness you claim for religious morality is equally applied to scientific morality by its own methods, unless you'd like to claim, according to our conversation above, that we encounter some event and, by chance which to test it as true or not---a fine proposition for elements, a far more interesting proposition concerning human beings.
For even if you say evidence-based research takes for granted the respect one must have for human life, how is that verified by evidence or a conclusion come to (or, at what point does human experimentation just become a 'for the greater good' mentality?)?

There's a good deal more to say on the issue, but I hope you see that at least from the Catholic perspective, human lives are and never have been seen in absolute terms, but we believe God's laws to be principles for action and that love, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness be the pallet that fills in each subsequent shade, circumstance, and person. That's what we believe, at least.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-17 00:01:25 +0000 UTC]

What you described is not moral absolutism, though. The key tenet of absolutism is that it is absolute in it's judgement, IE stealing, murder and rape are always wrong. To introduce the other portions is to place partial relativism onto the claims, no longer making them absolutes.


You're trying to diminish absolutism's by claiming that moral absolutism is moral universalism which says principles are not affected by culture and status while actions are affected by such.

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been derived from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a consensual relationship.

Our claims are the same, though one of us is using improper terminology, and I suspect yours is the one that is improperly defined, as 1) it is redundant, and 2) your terminology does not appear as used.




So your claim is that god's laws that he calls perfect are not perfect, being reliant on time and location?

Psalms 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.

This should be considered carefully, since the bible explicitly calls for the stoning of women who are not virgins, it tells how to regulate slavery, tells us not to eat shellfish or wear blended cloth.

And as for the 10 commandments, hammurabbi's code did it 2 millenia before the 10 commandments, and it disn't spend half the time calling for the worship of a singular god, not to use said deity's name in vain, nor to work on a specific day of the week.

To go through the commandments:

1 Don't worship other gods: Unnecessary
2 Don't worship false idols: Unnecessary
2 Don't use his name in vain: Unnecessary
4 Don't work on the sabbath: Unnecessary (I'm sure you don't follow this one)
5 Don't cheat on your spouse: good advice, but not necessary
6 Don't steal: Basic concept
7 Don't lie: (specifically to falsely incriminate someone): Basic concept
8 Don't Kill: another given
9 Respect your parents: decent advice, but not necessary law
10 Don't envy: Unnecessary

Of these, only 3, maybe 4 are good laws for a society, the rest being unnecessary, which makes it a poor code of conduct.

Furthermore, other philosophies contain the principles in christianity without the baggage that comes with them (such as a fundamental feeling that homosexuality is wrong, which is believed by a good portion of christians), such as Buddhism, this is due to the fact that things like empathy are hard wired into us as a species as it is a beneficial survival trait when part of a social species.


The religion-based claim came from the fact that it sounded like you were claiming evidenced based morality was inferior to religious-based morality.


Again, you're trying to shoehorn in your religion's existence as necessary and that secular morality is based on it, which is an extremely large flaw. The bits that are picked and chosen are not unique to your religion, they are almost universally found in religions, because they are the ones hard wired into humans as again, they are the ones that are most beneficial in a social setting.

Again, one needs to look no further than the anti homosexuality law in leviticus for an example of the fact that since religious based law puts no true scrutiny to laws they claim, as opposed to evidence-based morality, which scrutinizes the minutia of it's principles through inquiry into what applies for morality.



I hope you see, that what you're saying about the catholic church is contradictory, especially due to principles such as homosexuality are still viewed as wrong, heresy was strictly wrong and punishable by death during the time of the inquisition as a few starting examples of such. The philosophy you described at the end is buddhism, not christianity (Which by the way has been becoming more and more secular, dumping the old beliefs.)


The facts you gave are support of evidence based morality (moderate christianity, which is extremely similar to secular morality) developing from from an absolute morality (orthodox christianity).

Again, feel free to show why morality needs to be divinely inspired rather than developed from past experience in combination with a small portion of basic intuition.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TESM In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-17 05:06:14 +0000 UTC]

How I felt reading this (it's an interesting look at our differences): [link]

Well, I think we can define your ethical theory, or understanding of ethics, as the "My Chemical Romance Theory." And you should be very, very proud you came up with it.

Now, I wonder if math is your strong suit, because if you quoted the 10 commandments correctly, 2 speak about God, and 1 about the Holy day, then either 3 or 2 of the 10 speak about God. Now you said one half, which looks like 1/2 and 50%. But, I could swear that 2/10 = 1/5 or 3/10 was 30%. Oh well, it's all the same anyway, you have to "believe" in numbers I guess.
And I do keep it holy and rest on that day, thank you for your stupid comment.

I'm also guessing math is a strength of yours since 2 millenia (which looks like 2000, three zeroes) is not the distance between the 10 commandments and Hammurabi. The distance between the two is about 200-220 years. Also, I'm guessing you're pretty bad with words since nowhere in the 10 commandments does it say "and eye for an eye."

But I can overlook such simple mistakes as being stupid. It happens to people who mess up simple math all the time.

Yes a code of conduct you do not believe in or follow because you are "above" that is a bad code of conduct. Community college doesn't cost much these days.

Your first three paragraphs show you did not read me when I spoke of principles, which you rather idiotic treatment of the 10 commandments prove anyhow. They are "given." Well, you chose a fine word to help your case.

Also, did your parents take your allowance away? Or is not respecting one's parents "not necessary" for society? And yes, cheating on one's wife and unfaithful relationships (are you a member of that club?) do tend to make the human race better. We shouldn't ask men and women to live faithful relationships anyhow... it's not fun.

You use very good terminology like "religion" and "evidence based morality" and "empathy." You also didn't answer my criticisms of you unless you count your crying about "Furthermore, other philosophies contain the principles in christianity without the baggage that comes with them."

In the game Psychonauts you remind me of that character "Emotional Baggage."

As for some psalm that you quote out your ass. Cool. Google is cool too.

Guess that whole thing about Jesus telling those guys not to stone that prostitute who was guilty was breaking the law (LOLOLOLOLOL), and even forgave her of her sins, right there. You're right though, why "read" the bible when you can "know" the bible?

"Again, you're trying to shoehorn in your religion's existence as necessary"

not shoehorn, it's shown that Judaism and Christianity promoted a love for one's enemy and that God was present among us, not as slovenly Greek or Roman gods but a just model. "But God got angry and flooded the world! he's very stupid." Well, slow down there, champ, and understand that such a disaster was seen through that lens, perhaps, what what came after that story is equally as important, God, for them, didn't drown the world, but through His mercy (this is the story's claim) he cut back his wrath and promised peace.

Yes "hard wired" is a convenient term. This is why crime, selfishness, and other asshole people do not exists because our body tells us to empathize. Good luck proving that as applicable. ("B...but science says its true!" Welcome to YOUR religion).

I'm glad you also know the Catholic Church well enough to say we are contradictory. If you are proud of the human species, in what way does homosexuality for you progress the species? Through homosexual intercourse....that produces love and happiness?

Yes, the Church is wrong to say homosexual acts do not carry out one of the two purposes of sex between a man and a woman--unity and procreation. Boy did THEY have it wrong.

Also, your use of "moderate" and "orthodox" Christianity are poorly used.

For the last time you are talking about fundamental protestants.

But, in the end, you gave a very cute account of the history of the world and the triumph of science. I can see it has produced a fine young person in yourself. Your grasp of books you didn't read, parents you don't need to respect, couples you don't need to be faithful to, and morality that's based on EVIDENCE (I mean, empathy makes it all right now! That's a given that stealing is bad for society!) is all very compelling for a deviant art crowd.

Also, inquisition? Which one? Or did you not know it was really just the Spanish Inquisition that was ruthless and more political than religious, or that really of all the inquisitions less than 7% of people were convicted (perhaps 6-7% too many too)? Or... did Dawkins teach you how to go potty while he force-fed you shitty talking points.

So I showed above why your morality is inferior, and you brushed aside arguments about absolute principles and then shades of their implementation. I used language you use to make you understand, and then you come back with what is probably your shittiest post.

So, it doesn't offend me, in fact, there's a link at the top that describes how I feel.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to TESM [2011-06-17 05:28:57 +0000 UTC]

You know, I really don't have to refute anything here, since half is shooting at things you don't know and the other half is bawwing about how your Iron age sheep herder religion is somehow capable of keeping up with the times.


I think I'll simplify your argument

[link]



Now why don't you take your science hating, jesus cock sucking bitch ass back to the little abbey that you dragged it out of. No one's going to miss you or your foolish beliefs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SherlockHolmes22nd In reply to PlayfulElegy [2011-06-18 03:26:12 +0000 UTC]

i now a little of these arguments but youseemed very rud right now with talk of the cok-sucking
(sorry bad english)
your parents shuld be respected it is a good.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PlayfulElegy In reply to SherlockHolmes22nd [2011-06-18 05:38:11 +0000 UTC]

But not all parents should be respected. A good example is if your parents beat you. Respect for your parents should still be earned, though caring for you does give a bit of it.


And I was rude to him because he stopped being polite. If someone's going to act immature, then I'm going to treat them immaturely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0