Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerakSpielman" data-source="post: 1318010" data-attributes="member: 7464">Well, this question wasn't for me, but I knew a fellow who said he thought he might be getting too accepting of other people's beliefs when he saw a bumper sticker that said "Hatred is not a family value" and automatically - and seriously - thought "Well, it isn't in my family, but who am I to say what you do and do not consider a value in your family?"  Sure. But two untrue things are equally non-valid, and thus can be said to be equally valid. The "validity" that is equal just happens to be zero. That's an ultra-inflamitory topic - I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. But just because a behavior is counter-productive for purposes of the survival of a species does not, in itself, make the behavior inherently wrong. First, you have to prove that the survival of the species is somehow a morally/ethically superior situation to the non-survival of the species. Yes, I missed that one. There are many people with that belief. The only problem is they all seem to believe that their belief set is the one that is correct, and everybody else's are the ones that have differeing degrees of correctness. How is a third party supposed to make heads or tails of this mess? We're getting into natural law and human nature. As you well know, most of the great philosophers described what man was like in a "state of nature" or what have you, and built their philosophy up around that assumption. Ulness you can prove that your interpretation of natural law is correct, your whole argument is resting on an assumption. Interesting. You can't prove that, of course, without using logic. Any system that requires its own rules to prove its own existance is fundamentally flawed. I mentioned this a while back, but if something existed that didn't obey logical rules, logic would be useless to describe it. You can't use logic to prove the existance of something illogical, even if that something exists. It's a narrowly bounded explanation of things that claims it can explain everything, but can't prove it can explain everything. You might, then, challange me to produce something that logic can't explain, but (gotcha!) that's using logical methodology.  I believe there are some very fat tomes on the subject (and the thicker the book, the more true it is, right?) in my church library. I'll see if I can give you some titles.</blockquote>

Verification