I (Rob) have never said that science is immoral. I have said that science is ammoral.
Message 9The problem with these
theories is that they undermine the
moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
Message 167But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.
So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.
Message 228Razd:
Basing behavior on false beliefs is not moral.
Unless your morality is based on a perversion of information.
Beyond that which is amoral, what is not moral, is
'immoral'. And perversion of information is called
'lies'. Both denote a word that is lacking from your vocabulary because you claim not to believe in such doctrine;
sin.
I told you it was about morality.
Did you not believe me?
It is
all about morality Razd. And morality is inseperable from what is most precious to you.
If something is
amoral there are no moral ramifications one way or the other -
by definition.
It is very often the 'homosexual community', or those who otherwise see themselves as 'finally free' (to live as they please) who exhibit some of these symptoms. And I am not singling out the homosexual community as you are doing with the 'fundamentalist label.
You did just single them out - you just asserted that they exhibit {anger? vitriol?} and implied that it was due to their (immoral by implication) life-style and you gave no other examples. I call that singling out.
Conversely what I said was:
Nuggin's racist KKK illiterates don't include blacks, asians and jews in their society, so it is okay in their view to attack them. Muslim fundamentalists likewise feel justified - if not bound - to attack those that criticize their faith (the cartoon fiasco last year) because they see it as evil, an attack on their society. Christian fundamentalists have similar problems with things they see as attacks on their society.
Can you tell me where christian fundamentalists were
singled out?
What utterly disturbs me, is the attempt by Razd and others to label ('fundamentalist') and look to a scapegoat for their problems.
By what twisted logic do you get from a general discussion of morality based on different definitions of society - and how that affects people like cho - to an attempt to make fundamentalism the scapegoat here?
What I see here is just exactly what I was talking about - the propensity of people to be disturbed by what they see as attacks on their definition of society. Disturbed, angry, and reacting to such perceived attacks with an attack of their own.
But this bold faced attempt here by Razd, to label every solicitation for clear thought, and every sharp rebuke, as the Son of the demonic activity at work in each of us, is itself, the essence of bigotry and elitism.
Q.E.D.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
