<p>
</p>
<p>The question was why the assumption that most Catholics are blue collar workers and/or Hispanics. </p>
<p>This is not an age-old stereotype, so I’m assuming there’s some sort of census or data collected on Catholics that he has been reading.</p>
<p>"If life isn’t valuable to you, then why are you still here? Nevermind the biological reasons that we choose to live. I’m not going to argue the validity of life with you – if you don’t think being alive is important, then get out of the way of those who do. "</p>
<p>Wow, you just love to miss the point and make unfounded assumptions about other people’s character. I said that life being valuable was an assumption; I never said it was not an assumption that I held myself. As for biology, apparently that can be overcome by force of will, otherwise we would not be worried about suicidal extremists, now would we? I don’t even understand why you mentioned biology in context…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No I am not saying they are proven. Yet you seem to be saying they are unproven yet have not given any backing for your statement. Where is your proof? You have none yet you want others to prove their statements. Step up to the plate and follow your own requirements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, you can construct a system so that that belief is valid. you can’t hope to make it consistent with facts gathered from observation though (i’m guessing that we are capable of examining the objects in orbit around the earth here).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i believe that in the best case we assume a few facts about what is right and what is wrong, and use reason to derive results about other facts about what is right and wrong. so, within a set of assumptions, things can be right or wrong, or true or false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. All of those things are unacceptable to you because you’ve deemed them as such, not necessarily because they intrinsically are. Why IS shooting you in the face unprovoked bad? Because life is a right? Really. I forgot where I read that the universe stated that empirically. You need to open your eyes in your own direction and gain a sense of self-realization and self-understanding before you call people out on what you openly do yourself. I would call you a hypocrite but I don’t think you realize what you’re doing, so it’s ignorance instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you’re setting up a false dichotomy and an arbitrary restriction. Why don’t all Americans worship the flag daily, if it’s a symbol of our country? Because nowhere is it said that they should. Similarly, you are asserting something totally random about the Bible and then claiming others don’t follow it. Duh. They just have different arbitrary beliefs on the Bible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re still not getting it. I am an absolutist, not a relativist. And prove empirically that the dark ages were worse. Why is saving life good? Why is increased comfort good? etc.</p>
<p>Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. When you boil down your ideology, that’s what you get. Your unwillingness to do so doesn’t alter reality. It’s not subject to what you consider pleasant or convenient.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. That is not the definition of a Christian. The Church started before the Bible. The definition of a Christian is completely independent from the Bible – one could independently arrive at the idea of Jesus, for example. One could claim that the Bible is only relevant insofar as it mentions Jesus. One could claim that the Bible is an aide. But for you to claim the Biblical literalism is a requirement is moronic given that the Church predated the Bible. Furthermore, you are limiting Truth to the Bible artificially.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a vacuous question. First, Jesus either is or is not divine. This is not dependent on time. Second, Christian religions that have sources of morality or faith separate from the Bible clearly do not need to depend solely on the Bible. Let it drop. A false position is a false position, so stop digging yourself into a hole that will, however unreasonably, discredit pretty much anything you have to say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. It is not relativism. It is the reality of acknowledging that there is NO morality without assumptions. The things you consider nonsensical (or sensible) are in fact the product of a series of assumptions. Those undesirable situations are the product of assumptions. Common sense is the product of assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. It is not enough. You need to explain on an ontological level why scientific desire to survive is a moral good that should be preserved.</p>
<p>In other words, prove with no assumptions whatsoever that it is bad that I run up to you and shoot you in the face. Outline it to make each step airtight in terms of logical consequence. If you can do this, I will admit total defeat on all counts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, yes, a vague post that points to nothing in particular. I have backed up all statements that require support, as far as I am aware and as far as the other posters care (given that they have not said anything). So point to something in particular and then I’ll support it with evidence, if applicable. But “OMG YOU SUCK” is not going to be received well unless some shred of evidence is provided.</p>
<p>It’s funny that in the post in which you accuse me of not proving anything, you fail to provide a single instance of this being the case. And if others are willing to accept my assumptions without proof, that’s their prerogative. Just as it is theirs to challenge my posts, and my evidence, if necessary.</p>
<p>You can’t really prove anything. Wonderful. Guess what? I like living, and I would rather not die. Most people like living, and would rather not die. That’s good enough for me. You want to ask for evidence for every simple assumption? Here’s about as simple as it gets: I am biologically programmed to prefer living and to survive. </p>
<p>And a big LOL at the idea that the Middle Ages were somehow more desirable than current society. Easy to say from your couch via a computer. </p>
<p>You can keep all of your ridiculous argumentative tactics. I’ll be out enjoying life. What a sad, sad life you must live.</p>
<p>Well pandem, you may be a good human being, but you have thus far failed to prove that you are a good philosopher, logician, or scientist; so please don’t try to argue from those positions if you are going to be so simplistic. </p>
<p>“Guess what? I like living, and I would rather not die… That’s good enough for me.”</p>
<p>This is all that was necessary.</p>
<p>“You can keep all of your ridiculous argumentative tactics.”</p>
<p>On the contrary, it is your “argumentative tactics” that are ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i’m not trying to mislead you at all. i’m just trying to convince you that you aren’t being honest about your beliefs.</p>
<p>No, I’m not good at extending the rules of logic to a ridiculous extreme. If everyone had the mentality that “everyone’s opinion is equally right/wrong” we’d still be cavemen. But, of course, I can’t prove with impeccable logic that we are in a more desirable position than cavemen.</p>
<p>So says the man posting from a computer in a society that provides the security necessary to be able to post his thoughts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that’s not what i’m saying though. i have an opinion on things and do call things/actions right and wrong. you do too. however, i realize that when i do this, i make some assumptions, and as such, won’t be able to convince anyone else who doesn’t share those assumptions. </p>
<p>what i don’t do: pretend like i have no a priori. like i have a reason for everything & people who view the world differently are just idiots who are incapable of reason. people who do this (internet athiests are a pop. example) really get on my nerves . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you can, if you make a few assumptions. probably i’d agree with those assumptions too.</p>
<p>You fail at reading comprehension.</p>
<p>I BELIEVE THAT MY SYSTEM OF ABSOLUTE MORALITY IS RIGHT AND THAT EVERYONE ELSE WHO DISAGREES IS WRONG. Period. I do NOT have a mentality that “everyone’s opinion is right.”</p>
<p>What I AM saying is that your “opinion” requires assumptions. Your statement that “you like living…blahblahblah biologically programmed blahblahblah” is certainly a view held by many people.</p>
<p>It has as its underlying assumption that biological impulses should be adhered to and/or listened to in some sense. That is not an objective truth. That is a belief system based around the scientific desire to survive. Some who do not believe in morality claim that adherence to biology is what is necessary for survival, and therefore we are compelled to do it, but it is not a moral question. Others claim that biology IS morality. Assumptions. Assumptions. Inferences. Faith. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Operating under the assumption that increased comfort is a natural good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My life is full of happiness. I gladly embrace moral absolutism. But I live in the real world, not some mental la-la land where I never have to question my beliefs or think about them and dismiss everyone else’s beliefs as idiotic, or not worthy of consideration because they DARE to challenge an assumption I take as a given.</p>
<p>I don’t think people who view the world differently are idiots. I already said this: believe whatever you want. </p>
<p>But if your beliefs are dangerous to those who don’t hold the same beliefs, there is obviously a problem.</p>
<p>“I can’t prove with impeccable logic that we are in a more desirable position than cavemen.”</p>
<p>You can; but any such logical progression would have to involve assumptions that everyone involved in the debate could agree on. I do not think it is possible to reason <em>at all</em> without some basic assumptions. This does not mean necessarily that any knowledge we possess is Truth.</p>
<p>"But if your beliefs are dangerous to those who don’t hold the same beliefs, there is obviously a problem. "</p>
<p>Yes, and one that is not solved easily. Take that statement, and try to look at things from the perspective of a “religious person”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did comfort become the only advancement in the past 1000 years? Hint: you are only able to express your opinion because of technology. If you lived 1000 years ago, you would most likely be dead or dying right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My post was my opinion and was never presented as fact, yet you took it that way. And by you just posting (unproven) means nothing except your opinion differs from mine. We might both be wrong or both be right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The key here is your “assumptions”. Assumptions don’t always equal fact. I am not willing to accept your assumptions or anyones assumptions as fact since they are usually nothing more than one’s opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ok, so you take back this statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>good. : )</p>
<p>No, sorry. I don’t. You can keep your ridiculous beliefs. I respect your right to have them; I don’t respect your beliefs. </p>
<p>Am I “irrational” for thinking people should not force their beliefs onto others? By the over-analyzed definition present here, I must be. If X leads to Y, and Y is undesirable, does working to prevent X make me irrational?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So? I am alive now. The amenities available to me now didn’t exist 1000 years ago. That doesn’t mean that they’re good. Expressing my opinion, for example, might be a moral evil for someone. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Dangerous?” By whose standards? Yours? Theirs? LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse you? Is altering reality your favorite hobby now?</p>
<p>Let’s revisit your post…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where exactly is this presented in any way other than factual? Did you caveat it somehow? I must have missed the part where it is suggested in any way that this is your opinion, versus what you think should pass off as a fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duh. By definition assumptions are opinions. That doesn’t change the fact that you said that I didn’t prove anything, and then proceeded NOT to point out any instances where I needed to back statements up.</p>
<p>So do so now or let it drop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. What makes you irrational is your refusal to accept that the undesirability of Y is a personal assumption, not a universal fact. In other words, you are working against X because you don’t like Y. But someone who likes Y will work for X. Throughout this thread, you have blasted anyone who does so. I can provide select quotations if you would like. The “irrationality” stems from your closed-mindedness and your refusal to acknowledge the assumptions that you are making while ridiculing others for their own.</p>
<p>So, in your opinion, if someone’s opinion infringes on my ability to have an opinion, somehow I am incapable of declaring their opinion wrong, or at the very least, disliking their opinion? </p>
<p>I’m waiting for your nonsensical opinion on this one.</p>
<p>Also, I’d love to see how you factor this into your daily life. Assuming you actually leave the house, that is.</p>