Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 3:19 PM
148 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, edge, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, WookieeB (11 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,431 Year: 3,468/19,786 Month: 463/1,087 Week: 53/212 Day: 14/39 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 226 of 305 (396125)
04-18-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Archer Opteryx
04-18-2007 9:09 PM


Re: Reality
Archer:
Reality is the ultimate answer. Anything else is not real.

You won't get an argument from me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 9:09 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2007 9:54 PM Rob has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 227 of 305 (396416)
04-19-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rob
04-18-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Reality
You won't get an argument from me.

As Archer also notes:

Message 225
You pay insufficient attention to the necessity, Rob, of distinguishing between reality and our ideas of it.

The question is, how do you validate your idea of reality -- how do we all validate our idea of reality? Does one ignore evidence that contradicts ideas? Or does one build their ideas based on evidence first? Or do we have different levels of trust in ideas based on how sure we are of the evidence for them?

You seem to have an issue with morality -- that affects the way you deal with information.

On What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories?, your first post was more concerned with your perceived problem with some aspect of morality than with whether the theory was correct or not. The implication of your post was that the theories were developed for intentionally immoral purposes rather than for their possible validity.

You also disrupted Abiogenesis with similar arguments about morality independent of the validity of the arguments for the scientific theories. You were suspended 3 times for it, and still when you come back you post:

Message 202
The different sides of the moral implications.

Still riding that issue. The impression I get is that you label any idea that conflicts with your idea of reality as immoral, and this is the way you deal with the cognitive dissonance produced by concepts that challenge your ideas. I asked you why you need to make these threads into issues of morality -- rather than ones on improving our knowledge of what is reality. This is your response:

On Message 167 you posted:

Rob:
Why are you looking for the mechanism?

This is where absolute morality comes into play. Honestly, why do you want to know?

Razd:

Why is everything you argue about reduced to some attack on absolute morality?

Razd asked an important question.

Admins.... Please allow me here, I intend to be as respectfully frank as I am capable. If you feel the need to respond Razd, perhaps we should move it to the perceptions of reality thread. We're getting off on a tangent.

I asked why the mechanism was being sought for a reason. To provoke her to consider her motivations for herself. Perhpas they are pure...

But 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.

Razd:

Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?

Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?

Razd:

Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?

Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.

Where would you draw that line Razd?

Is there any place you presume to judge we should not go, and why?

Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are? If reality has not already established them, then we are left to wander for ourselves.

There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?

No?

But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!

You may think I am being extreme, but I think you are making light of it on the other end of the spectrum. There is some truth to your argument Razd, but don't forget it's limitations.

And if we (as uncivilized as we are) look down with disdain and moral condemnation upon such atrocities, how must we look to an actually moral and Holy being? What would an alien such as the Holy God I believe in, think of you and me? I think that compared to Him, we are worse off than Josef Mengele is compared to us.

I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.

After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?

Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...

Razd:

Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.

All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one! And I say that knowing what it is like to cut off my own legs now and then.

Perhaps I am childish and overbearing at times; mea culpa, mea culpa once again. But I am trying to understand these things...

I'll take these points to answer:

But 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.

What is "arguably obvious (creation)" to you is that your idea of reality is only -- can only include -- a certain religious belief, no matter what the evidence of the reality shows. You attempt to label any conflicting idea as immoral, not because it is invalid, but because this protects you from considering that it is valid.

Razd:
Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?

Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?

Are you sure? Here's another version of the story, http://www.deism.com/adamandeve.htm (a satire):

quote:
ACT ONE
1. God created the world and two people named Adam and Eve, with whom he intended to populate the world.
2. One day, while God was not looking, the Devil came and captured Adam and Eve.
3. Adam and Eve were imprisoned in the Devil's garden called "Eden." God spoke to his eternal foe and asked for the return of his people. But the Devil, being fond of his new pets, refused.
4. God resolved to liberate Adam and Eve. Taking the shape of a serpent, God sneaked into the Devil's garden.
5. Sensing that Eve was the more insightful of the pair, God approached her.
6. God said to Eve, "If you will listen to me, I know a way for you to escape your imprisonment."
7. Eve said, "But Mr. Serpent, I do not wish to escape Eden. I like it here. This garden has everything I need."
8. God said, "You do not know what you are missing. Outside of this garden is an entire world, much larger than a mere garden. This world was created for your use. You will be much more satisfied there."
9. Eve said, "Really? I need to discuss this with Adam."
10. God said, "No, don't do that! Listen to me. In the far part of the garden there is a tree, called the Tree of Knowledge. Eat from this tree, and trick Adam into doing the same. Then you will know of the world at large, and your true mission in life."

There's more, you can read the whole thing at the above link.

Razd:
Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?

Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.
Where would you draw that line Razd?

It is not in learning that the problem lies, but in the application of knowledge: the knowledge to split the atom can be used (a) for increasing scientic knowledge through experimentation to see how the basic physics works, (b) to provide energy to power lights, industries and personal computers for communication of ideas around the world or (c) to blow it all up because one religious group thinks another religious group doesn't have their story of creation right.

I don't draw the line on learning information, and on testing to see whether it is a true, valid, correct vision of reality.

Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are?

Who gets to decide that they even exist? You seem to appoint yourself readily any chance you get eh?

There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?

Okay you've played the Nazi sadistic torture "experiment" card. Congratulations: you've conflated science with torture and arbitrary killing to show that science is immoral ... except that your argument is false. Mengele was more of an ideologue than a scientist, and what he did was driven by his (false) ideology rather than by a pursuit of knowledge:

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/100/mengle.htm

quote:
According to an Auschwitz friend and fellow-SS physician, Mengele espoused the visionary SS ideology that the Nordic race was the only truly creative race, that it had been weakened by Christian morality of Jewish origin, and that Germany needed to revert to ancient German myths in creating an SS ''order'' to purify the Nordic race. According to his friend, Mengele was an extreme anti-Semite, ''fully convinced that the annihilation of the Jews is a provision for the recovery of the world and Germany.'' And Mengele considered these views to be scientifically derived.

Mengele produced three publications before he came to Auschwitz. ... But their conclusions uniformly reflect Mengele's commitment to bringing science into the service of the Nazi vision.

Mengele's fanatically brutal approach to his research can be understood mainly in terms of his combination of ideological zealotry and scientific ambition.


So what we see is more the evil of perverting science to serve ideology than to pursue knowledge of the reality of the universe. In this your example is closer to the creationist perversion of science than it is to the pursuit of knowledge. This is not the danger of knowledge but of ideology -- especially one that is not based on reality.

But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!

False. We just don't need to torture people and arbitrarily kill them to obtain this information. We don't need Mendele's experiments to understand heredity. We also do not need to use this example, when there are others: the experiments on syphlis in the south using black men is another example -- an example of behavior thought to be moral within the society.

Rather than provide an example where science is immoral, you have provided another example of relativistic morality, where killing people was considered moral by the society at the time. In both your example and the one I provided the work was assisted by people - rather than condemned - because it was considered morally acceptable. In both cases these moral criteria were based on false knowledge and a false belief in the inferiority of some people compared to others. It is not the knowledge being pursued that is the question of moral or immoral behavior, but the manner in which it was acquired and the validity of the ideologies that they were based on.

I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.

And yet it is you that I see lusting for ignorance, ready - and more than willing - to extinguish any light of reason that threatens your ideology.

After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?
Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...
Razd:
Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.

All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one!

Strangely, I am not the one running away from knowledge or any confrontation with the evidence of the reality of the universe, a universe that it is 13+ billion years old, with an earth that is 4.55+ billion years old, with life on earth that is 3.5+ billion years old, where there is no geological or other record of a single world wide flood, and where evolution has occurred and will continue to occur.

I suppose you think it is "immoral" for tree rings to show a continuous span of existence for over 12,000 years .... but denial of evidence is not moral. Teaching falsehoods is not moral. Basing behavior on false beliefs is not moral.

Unless your morality is based on a perversion of information.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : topy


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:09 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:24 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 228 of 305 (396579)
04-20-2007 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
04-19-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Reality
Razd:
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.

What is your treasure?

What you seek, reveals your real heart and exposes it's true motivations.

As Jesus said,

21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Jesus also said:

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

Ho 10:2
Their heart is deceitful, and now they must bear their guilt. The Lord will demolish their altars and destroy their sacred stones.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2007 9:54 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 229 of 305 (396581)
04-20-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
04-19-2007 9:54 PM


Re: Reality
Razd:
I don't draw the line on learning information, and on testing to see whether it is a true, valid, correct vision of reality.

Well you just did draw a line with your convoluted statement because it implies that doing otherwise would be wrong. I agree! And I detest your insinuation that I advocate such things.

It is I who argue for morality not you. So what exactly is your contention?

You've said nothing... What you give with one hand, like some marvelous magician, you take away with the other.

It is you sir who moralize incessantly, all for the sake of extinguishing the most important information of all... morality iself.

Your sorcery is sophist at best...

It's actually quite boring.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2007 9:54 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AdminPhat, posted 04-21-2007 7:37 AM Rob has responded
 Message 232 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-21-2007 10:54 AM Rob has responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 230 of 305 (396608)
04-21-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rob
04-20-2007 11:24 PM


Re: Reality
This attack on the person is quite against the Forum Guidelines

Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:24 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 10:22 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 231 of 305 (396618)
04-21-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by AdminPhat
04-21-2007 7:37 AM


Re: Reality
:confused:
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by AdminPhat, posted 04-21-2007 7:37 AM AdminPhat has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 232 of 305 (396623)
04-21-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rob
04-20-2007 11:24 PM


Re: Reality
I'm ready for Rob to either make his 'morality' point once and for all--rationally and logically and self-consistently, showing all the math--or forever drop it.

He's been shown the problems. The paramount problem is that he wants to sacrifice reality and all inquiries into it on the altar of (his idea of) morality.

On what rational basis can anyone make such a demand? How can truth--reality--occupy an inferior position to anything else? Outside reality nothing is real. By definition.

As soon as you argue that something stands superior to truth, that thing--whatever you call it--can only be untruth. Unreality.

Clue for Rob: Beware thinking of reality as 'good for' something--as a useful tool for persuading others of an idea that is more important to you than what is real. As soon as you do that you abandon reality as a mooring for your mind. A dangerous place to be.

Listen to yourself. You are actually trying to shame people for being truth seekers. There is no Christian case to be made for such a supreme act of folly. On what basis do you do this?

You've been called on it in a manner that is patient, detailed, and fair. All you you've done in response is kick up sand. We're seeing the patented Rob defense mechanisms of avoidance and preachy rhetoric and name calling and basically just yelping like stuck pig.

Make a point, Rob, if you have one. Now is the time.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:24 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 233 of 305 (396629)
04-21-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Archer Opteryx
04-21-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Reality
Archer:
Make a point, Rob, if you have one. Now is the time.

I'll do my best...

It's like this; you spoke of reality and truth in your last post as though it is inarguable and absolute. Where do you see it? Every example you can give is relative. The only place we can find an absolute is in the moral law. But when I speak of morality as absolute, you'd think I uttered the most sinful and insulting words imaginable judging by the way you guys tend to recoil.

You've glorified and exalted the emperical (physical) world so high, that you have completely missed the fact that all things physical are relative. So what can we believe?

The Bible discusses this plainly. By worshipping the creation and looking to it for truth, you have lost sight of what is ultimately real. Jesus said it more clearly (and offensively to you) than I ever did, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my Word will never pass away.'

The reason we look to creation for truth, is that we assume ourselves to be the final authority and measure of all things. The Enlightenment Spirit is still with us.

This is curious, since we admit rationally (Descartes), that we cannot know from our 'relative' perspective. Enter now Emannuel Kant, and abracadabra... belief in God is totally a leap of faith.

So what do we do in response? We take David Hume and conclude that the only thing real is the material. The facts are the facts, and that is what reality is...

Problem: The fact is... everyone dies. That is reality and that is life! What again is reality and life? It is death! That is the absolute. Why are we trying to stop that? And why do we see it as bad? If... it is just a fact!

Counterperspective: John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Archer:

The paramount problem is that he wants to sacrifice reality and all inquiries into it on the altar of (his idea of) morality.

Seriously... what you just described sounds like 'the cross' to me. Mankind sacrificing absolute morality and truth at the alter of relativity.

Archer:

On what rational basis can anyone make such a demand? How can truth--reality--occupy an inferior position to anything else? Outside reality nothing is real. By definition.

And how can morality take an inferior position?

You see reality through the lens of your personal morality Archer. In our minds, we are God. And God is a threat to our kingdom. That's why we crucified Him.

It's an alien invasion. The perfect analogy...

God comes not in some hokey pokey space ship that is actually technologically inferior, but in the most sophisticated 'vessel' in the known universe.

He says clearly and plainly that His kingdom is not of this world.

He shows His true glory and nature durring the transfiguration (Which btw terrifies his disciples), and He says, 'be not afraid'.

We then kill Him for daring to question our authority and trying to change our culture and traditions.

And He raises from the dead, tells us to go and tell everyone who will listen, and promises to return.

No modern sci-fi can compete. Their all artificial copies of the reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-21-2007 10:54 AM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by anglagard, posted 04-21-2007 12:31 PM Rob has responded
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 12:32 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 236 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 12:37 PM Rob has responded
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2007 7:24 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-21-2007 9:06 PM Rob has responded
 Message 253 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-21-2007 9:34 PM Rob has responded
 Message 254 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-21-2007 9:59 PM Rob has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 234 of 305 (396632)
04-21-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Reality
Rob, if reality is subjective how do you know morality is absolute, after all under your logic all of your experiences, even driving your truck, going to church, or even reading the Bible may not be 'real.'
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:53 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16217
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 235 of 305 (396633)
04-21-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Reality
Rob writes:

... all things physical are relative.

I'd say that physical things come close to being "absolute" in the sense that they can be observed objectively. Morality, on the other hand, is relative because it is based on subjective perceptions of reality.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 236 of 305 (396634)
04-21-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Where's the Beef?
The only place we can find an absolute is in the moral law.

You keep asserting that but so far have never bothered to show us an example of such a thing as Absolute Morality or an Absolute Moral.

Such a critter may well exist but until one can be found and examined, there is no evidence it exists.

So far every moral law presented has just been a relative thing dependent on societal consensus.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 1:18 PM jar has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 237 of 305 (396635)
04-21-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by anglagard
04-21-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Reality
Anglagard:
Rob, if reality is subjective how do you know morality is absolute, after all under your logic all of your experiences, even driving your truck, going to church, or even reading the Bible may not be 'real.'

But reality is not subjective. Our delusions are subjective. Reality by definition is objective. One's perception of reality is not equal to reality.

Reality is what it is.

One way I know morality is absolute is when someone sprinkles my conscious, it resonates at a palpable level. It may not be rational in terms that can be expressed mathematically to our complete satisfaction. But I do believe that when someone tries to reason with me, and remind me that I am in 'the wrong' about some selfish ambition of my own, that they are right.

In fact, my wife is looking over my shoulder right now to remind me that our son has 'tee ball' pictures this morning, and that my attention to this forum is at the moment selfish if not put into proper perspective. She is right... and I concede that to her now.

Goodbye...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by anglagard, posted 04-21-2007 12:31 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 1:09 PM Rob has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16217
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 238 of 305 (396636)
04-21-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Reality
Rob writes:

One's perception of reality is not equal to reality.

But "two's" perception is more likely to be real than "one's". And thousands' perception is more likely to be real than two's.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:53 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 1:16 PM ringo has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 239 of 305 (396637)
04-21-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ringo
04-21-2007 1:09 PM


Re: Reality
Ringo:
But "two's" perception is more likely to be real than "one's".

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But if what you say is true, then abortion is wrong and same sex marriage is an atrocity!

What do you think now?

Consensus has nothing to do with reality. Reality needs no apporval from us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 1:09 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 04-21-2007 1:29 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 240 of 305 (396638)
04-21-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by jar
04-21-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Where's the Beef?
"This will just take a second dear... And please don't look at me that way."

jar:

You keep asserting that but so far have never bothered to show us an example of such a thing as Absolute Morality or an Absolute Moral.

Was Cho in his right mind?

Did he do anything wrong when he killed those people? Or was he just dancing to his perception of reality and otherwise faultless?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 12:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 04-21-2007 1:38 PM Rob has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019