> Little Paul wrote:

> @avo:
I waited for Justinian to clarify himself before I reacted. It wasn't meant as an insult, I really though you knew.

ah, i misinterpreted. i thought you were saying that i know the definition he is using, but you were saying i knew he was using a weird definition of the word.

chickenwingz, before i regard you as a complete moron for the rest of your stay in this forum, let me make sure i got your argument clear. You are claiming that atheism cannot be a religion because there is a separate religion (Buddhism)  that has atheist beliefs?

you know how many different sects of Christianity have virtually identical beliefs but one believes one thing the other doesn't and yet they are regarded as separate religions?

lol@avo, idd

@all:
it depends on what definition of religion you use. And believe it or not, you can always choose what definition you use. Whatever dictionary you can give an example of, isn't written by God. And as an atheist that's easy to say for me.

So if you're definition is a religion is a believe in a higher magical power of some kind, a lot of atheist would be non religious. If your definition is simply "your religion is what you believe", then all atheist are idd religious. Its a childish discussion really. What matters is we all understand what the other person means. This can happen by standards or by simple agreements.

Amos Starkadder: Ye miserable, crawlin' worms. Are ye here again then? Have ye come like Nimshi, son of Rehoboam, secretly out of your doomed houses, to hear what's comin' to ye? Have ye come, old and young, sick and well, matrons and virgins, if there be any virgins amongst you, which is not likely, the world being in the wicked state that it is. Have ye come to hear me tell you of the great, crimson, licking flames of hell fire? Aye! You've come, dozens of ye. Like rats to the granary, like field mice when it's harvest home. And what good will it do ye? You're all damned! Damned! Do you ever stop to think what that word means? No, you don't. It means endless, horrifying torment! It means your poor, sinful bodies stretched out on red-hot gridirons, in the nethermost, fiery pit of hell and those demons mocking ye while they waves cooling jellies in front of ye. You know what it's like when you burn your hand, taking a cake out of the oven, or lighting one of them godless cigarettes? And it stings with a fearful pain, aye? And you run to clap a bit of butter on it to take the pain away, aye? Well, I'll tell ye, there'll be no butter in hell!

confirming i am a moron just because i can make a good arguement supported by facts? which you seem to be unable to do?
oh wow, i should've been able to judge by your sig that you were an ignorant ass hole who doesn't give shit about good arguements because he himself is too stupid to come up with any, and so just attacks other people -.-
and me here trying to have a sane and good discussion, seems like i'm just being trolled... fine, then i won't discuss anything anymore.

This seems like a disastrous case of "nobody is using the same definitions."

> Justinian I wrote:

> Listos,

1. Why are you bringing up the philosophical theory of Idealism when it neither applies to what I am saying, and you have denied that its traditional arch rival, Empiricism, is relevant?

--> You brought it up first. Read the topic of the thread. I only respond.

2. Your relativist counter arguments are nonsense. Relativism violates the law of non-contradiction, and is therefore illogical. A and ~A can not both be true or false at the same time. Using relativism to counter my arguments is frankly bordering on territory that denies the possibility of intelligent debate.

--> A and ~A aren't both true or false at the same time. They are only true or false at the same time if 2 different people choose either and they both turn out either true or false, not one and the other. I would also point out that Relativism also doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction unless your view point allows it to. As a Skeptic, I am not surprised that you would allow your SKEPTICISM to do so. You're rather biased in that case. hard to argue with someone who is biased

and no one said we had to use relativism, I was using it as an example. I suggest Kant before, but obviously you ignored that Maybe Nietzsche? Or what about Kierkegaard?

The judgments about Hitler's measurable accomplishments and whether he is good or bad are separate types of judgments. One is empirically testable, and the other is a value judgment. It is your choice to be awed by his economic and military accomplishments and ignore the human cost in your value judgments.

--> Sounds like free will to me. Alas, such is the human nature. =O I don't think we want to get into that though.

However, you are right that tyrants tend to be judged by the results of their actions rather than the justifications for their actions. But the justifications for their actions largely make their actions possible. It took some serious intellectual conditioning to convince people that Jewish people ought to be treated the way they were. If people believe that tyranny is justified, then tyranny can thrive.

--> Tyranny can thrive so long as the people do nothing to prevent it. As long as the people agree with it or tolerate it or allow it to continue, then it will never end. At least, not until some overriding force steps in (another country or as with the French Revolution, the people)

3. I think we both agree that claims treating a belief as absolute truth at least deserve great scrutiny. But when it comes to morality, I am a Skeptic and not a Relativist. Moral Skepticism is at least consistent with Logic, and asserts that moral knowledge is impossible. And I dismiss the psychological punishments for engaging in anti social activities present in most of the human population as morality, but rather as evolutionary adaptions of the psyche that improve the reproductive success of the human species. Morals historically have a prerequisite of being transcendental and absolute principles that ought to be obeyed, and the only way to be consistent with reason is to reject morality for being unsubstantiated.

---> Personal ideals (and so it seems to be) about Moral Skepticism seems to be contradictory =O How does the evolutionary adaptations of the psyche improve reproductive success? As I recall it's a 50/50 chance, 3-7 days out of the month. (or so) And any belief with absolute truth (in my opinion) should be considered suspicious until evidence is found proving it. Now with Christianity, that's hard to do. Basically, it's you vs the Bible and the Priests, and the Church, and the Community...et al. However, again, if enough people believe in it, it eventually becomes an agreed upon truth (more or less). Be wary what you agree with sir, as a new understanding of an idea may shake your foundations. Or maybe it might make you very happy? I don't know, but I can tell you that as for someone who revels in learning new things daily, I'd be ecstatic to learn something is true that I thought or assumed was false.

I reject ideology for similar reasons. Though ideologies do not necessarily depend on a religion or moral system, they also treat their beliefs as transcendental and absolute. I will give the pro-choice, "women have a right to choose" version as an example. They believe that women have the right to choose whether they have an abortion or not. The "right" they claim they have is implied as being transcendental, it is beyond experience, and it is absolute.

Getting away from ideology and entering a rational outlook requires us to throw away these beliefs that are commonly taken as absolute and transcendental. In the case of abortion, for example, we have to ask ourselves what our values are. Do we value the economic well being of our country? If so, then permitting abortion to prevent poverty and crime is a sensible idea.

--> Arguably, if we valued the well being of our economy, permitting abortion kills the workers that would make our economy run. Thus we run ourselves into the ground without having the appropriate numbers to sustain a growing work force.

4. As far as my use of self-evident and inalienable, I now realize it was a poor choice of words to convey my point. America's founders no doubt thought they were being rational with their Lockean arguments, but the fact is that self-evident and inalienable rights imply rights that are transcendental and absolute, which are not empirically testable.

--> Agreed. Thank you for clarifying.

Post script: You still haven't defined Politics.

@godwin:
"This seems like a disastrous case of "nobody is using the same definitions."
I said as much, but they prefer to ignore that fact.

It's stupid, but not quite embarrassing enough to be entertaining.

>>America's founders no doubt thought they were being rational with their Lockean arguments, but the fact is that self-evident and inalienable rights imply rights that are transcendental and absolute, which are not empirically testable.<<

They wanted to make them untouchable by government, which they knew would no-doubt want to touch them, ie nibble away at them until they were entirely erased. So they protected them with an ideology that said government has NO PLACE being your ****ing parent and babysitter, no matter what, ever. Whether or not peoples are better off with tyrannical governments with no limits to their power or governments which have limitations is empirically testable.

You just need a really, really big lab. And maybe a few million or billion volunteers.

While their language of ideology may have been transcendental and absolute, the purpose of this language and the intent behind it is clear, and whether or not the decisions which their ideology supports are good for mankind is technically testable, if not generally feasible. Historians/anthropologists/sociologists/psychologists can gather real evidence nonetheless. The ideology they supported could be expressed in less transcendental/absolute terms. Don't get hung up on the phrasing from centuries past. Big picture here people! (And if they are in fact right [not saying we'd ever _know_], their language would be rather technically accurate, regardless of one's religious perspective, in a natural law sort of way.)

From the start of the tread:
"You're not making any sense, Chris."

THE most sensible comment in a politics thread EVER!
I applaud thee.