Give it up. People have their own beliefs. You have yours. I have mine. You can't convince me to change my beliefs, and I can't convince you to change yours.

I will say that you don't provide a very good argument by asking "How do you know this?" or "What is your basis for (insert belief here)?"

This is getting ridiculous. Please just give it a rest.

Actually, that assertion is incorrect. There's a sufficient amount of data that a large portion of child molesters (and other abusers) are greatly influenced by the situation that they developed in. For example, it is much more likely that Johnny will develop into a child molester if Johnny's father was also a child molester. This concept applies to other situations such as domestic abuse. If Johnny sees his father deal with his problems with alcohol and then hit his mother, Johnny is similarly influenced to deal with his problems with alcohol and then hit his wife.

EDIT: Obviously wikipedia is not the best reference for this, but I figure I should support my claim with something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Effects

Why must there be such an emphasis on authority? Why is the emphasis of your argument not based around morals and ethics? Do you believe that lacking authority implies immorality and unethical behavior? If this is so, I'd like you to account for Nazism, a situation where the authority chose to rule with immorality and unethical behavior.

Allow people to maintain their own systems of belief. Imposition of your belief system via means of false proof is in itself immoral and unethical.

Convincing you of anything is not my job. I am merely pointing out the fallacies of your worldview.

First off... I never said what my views were. You have no basis on which to point out the flaws of my world view.

Secondly... My world view works for ME. That is all I am concerned with.

Finally... Tell me. Just because absolute truth exists, how does that point to your God in particular?

...And please don't answer with a question.

You miss the point, absent an absolute standard of morality there is no ultimate difference in being a Mother Teresa, or a Pol Pot, whether that end is chosen or imposed.

No, lack of authority implies that there can be no such thing as morality and ethics. Without an absolute standard, whatever is, just is. What one bag of advanced coagualted primordial slime (humans), does to another, would be totally irrelevant.

If the allies took this position, you’d be singing “Deutschland Deutschland über alles” now.

I’m not imposing anything, I just simply posted a website exposing the fallacies of those who maintain that proof of anything is possible without God.

You implied that they were different than mine. I imagine that you do not dare posting them, as I would clearly point out their fallacies.
Pragmatism fails in that it cannot define the proper goals to work towards. If all that matters is 'whatever works for you' then we can only hope that you are not a rapist, murderer, terrorist, or child molester (to name but a few).
By the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can consistenly account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the assumption that they will hold.

Why not?

I did imply that. Because they are. But you cannot point out the "fallacies" if you don't know what my beliefs are.


People define proper goals to work towards differently. Just because they differ in their goals does not make their goals wrong. I assure you that I am NOT any of the things you said. I find it extremely offensive that you would even allude to the possibility.


How is it impossible that the existence of absolute truth could point to another of the thousands of deities?

1) I did not miss the point. I responded directly to your rebuttal. The "point" that I'm making is that people are influenced by their situations. You state that any arbitrary path will lead a person to becoming a child molester, which is an absurd claim. Any arbitrary path will lead to any number of arbitrary outcomes based upon the life events that individual experienced while on the path. The specific ethical and moral decisions that person makes will be influenced by that path. The morals of a given culture coupled with the life experience of the individual lead to the decisions made by an individual for a given event. Absolute ethics do not exist because ethical decisions must be influenced by these life events.

2) Stating that lack of authority implies the cessation of morality is false. Society is influenced by authority and this authority can be either immoral or moral. Lack of authority does not imply either situation. When there is a lack of authority, social constructs form ethics and morality.

3) Thank you for pointing out my mistake. It would have been more correct of me to state "Assuming a belief system is moral, allow people to maintain their own system of belief". In the example of the Nazis, it cannot be stated that anything the authority was doing was moral. In the case of the authority being immoral, a combination of different groups of people equipped with morality removed the authority from power, restoring morality. If there is a cult that believes in killing all children except for the first born, I would be willing to bet that this immoral activity (killing children) would cause a bit of an uprising.

4) Your website is called proofthatgodexists.com. It ridicules those who form opinions other than your own through circular banter. That implies imposition of a belief system.

LOL
Guilty of one, guilty of all. Take comfort in the
fact that all but one are guilty, and thereby none
if one take's the Comfort.

Um, you defined them in the very next paragraph as being pragmatic.

No, people define DIFFERENT goals, absent an absolute standard there can be no such thing as ‘PROPER goals, and again, that is (one reason) why pragmatism fails.

But what if doing so “Works for me?” Yet another failure in your pragmatic worldview.

Tell me which one you believe in, and we’ll go from there.

But that has exactly nothing to do with my point. Again, my point is that absent an absolute standard of morality there is no ultimate difference in being a Mother Teresa, or a Pol Pot, whether that end is chosen or imposed.

No I didn’t, just that if morality is arbitrary, anyone is free to choose what they consider to be moral or immoral.

You beg the question by assuming that absolute ethics do not exist. That would be like saying that absolute laws of mathematics do not exist, because mathematical decisions must be influenced by life events.

Based on what standard?

Why not, if society establishes what is moral, why could their standard not be considered moral?

Not at all, you are free to exit at any time, even free to not visit the site.

Does anybody want to break this down in English? Maybe I'm missing something, but what the hell? I went to the link and it said that my search for proof ends there and they hope I can find my way?
I said that I don't believe in absolute moral laws. I think the example of child molesting is extreme. Most people don't believe in that, duh? But what about things like abortion? The one example that came to mind for me is this:

When Michael Vick got busted for fighting dogs the world went crazy and wanted his head. I agreed that he should get in trouble based on our laws. But, certain cultures fight dogs and it is accepted. We frown upon it, but they don't. Now, is that an example of an absolute moral law???

If it is morally wrong to fight dogs, does that mean all the people in that culture are going to hell?


Not arguing (and to prove it I am not going to respond to whatever crazy response you may have), just curious Canuck.

No I didn't. What I was saying in the very next paragraph is that while I have different views than other people, I don't try to force them on others. They work for me, and I don't feel the need to make other people believe what I do. If you would like to know what my beliefs are, I will gladly give you a paper I just finished writing about them if you would agree to just let me believe what I believe without critiquing me and pointing out the "fallacies" of my world view.


No. Different people define PROPER goals differently. If I think working for a car company is the best way to lead a successful and proper life, that is what I define as my proper goal. If someone else thinks working for a shoe company is the best way to lead a successful and proper life, that is what THEY define as their proper goal.


Personally it doesn't matter if it "works for you." It is offensive none-the-less, and shouldn't be tolerated on the board.


Like I stated above in this post, "If you would like to know what my beliefs are, I will gladly give you a paper I just finished writing about them if you would agree to just let me believe what I believe without critiquing me and pointing out the 'fallacies' of my world view."

who dragged up this thread again?
I'd personally like to superglue their fingers to their keyboard...

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

LOL whatever floats your boat. i would rather sail a sea of shit if that was the only water around LOL