Yet another damn terrorist attack

[I AM MOBIUS]

And AAHZ worships a huge pink fluffy unicorn that can fly and shoot rainbow laserbeams from its eyes and every night he lets it rape him up the ass with its horn

[Sava]

it really is like comparing which is the better unicorn - or the least rapey unicorn or whatever...

This is what religious debates are, essentially.

[Lorizael]

I agree. Progress would be for adherents from one religion to not adversely compare the leaders/teachings of another religion to theirs because, well, that's how wars start...

Another form of progress would be for fellow adherents to not band together with the first adherent when the error of his ways are pointed out.

Yes I admit I do have a low opinion of religion, and it's partly because of the absurdity of people from one religion trying to claim either directly or indirectly that their religion is somehow better than another religion - because it strikes to the root of why I hold organised religion with such disdain in the first place! And it is something that no religious person has ever been able to adequately explain to me in the first place - the paradox of choosing one faith over another when there are so many faiths to choose from and that, by definition, only one faith (assuming you believe in a divine being or beings) is the true one...

Until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer to that last point, it really is like comparing which is the better unicorn - or the least rapey unicorn or whatever...

MOBIUS, you also believe that your moral philosophy is correct. We know this, because you get very, very angry at people you think are bad people. The only difference between you and religious people (note: not claiming you are religious!) is that your moral philosophy is based on secular rather than spiritual ideas. But, well, all you have to do is open up an introductory book on ethics to see that there are plenty of different beliefs on what constitutes the correct form of secular ethics, even among people who are experts in the field. My guess is you're not an expert ethicist. How did you choose your particular brand, I wonder?

[Sava]

The only difference between you and religious people (note: not claiming you are religious!) is that your moral philosophy is based on secular rather than spiritual ideas.

No.

[I AM MOBIUS]

MOBIUS, you also believe that your moral philosophy is correct. We know this, because you get very, very angry at people you think are bad people. The only difference between you and religious people (note: not claiming you are religious!) is that your moral philosophy is based on secular rather than spiritual ideas. But, well, all you have to do is open up an introductory book on ethics to see that there are plenty of different beliefs on what constitutes the correct form of secular ethics, even among people who are experts in the field. My guess is you're not an expert ethicist. How did you choose your particular brand, I wonder?

Wow, so much certitude and yet so little basis for that certitude...

MOBIUS, you also believe that your moral philosophy is correct

Wrong. I believe it works for me and that it is an ongoing process of refinement - usually this has meant, in the past, replacing inferior and simple-minded tenets, usually originating from Christian moral philosophy, as that is the environment in which I grew up, with superior, less two-dimension and black and white ones.

We know this, because you get very, very angry at people you think are bad people.

You know nothing, Lori. It is not necessarily that mine is correct - more that their moral philosophy is clearly incorrect. And I don't get 'very, very angry', I barely get angry at anything these days - more resignation at someone being ignorant or bigoted, usually.

The only difference between you and religious people (note: not claiming you are religious!)

Wrong

is that your moral philosophy is based on secular rather than spiritual ideas.

Wrong

But, well, all you have to do is open up an introductory book on ethics to see that there are plenty of different beliefs on what constitutes the correct form of secular ethics, even among people who are experts in the field. My guess is you're not an expert ethicist.

My ethics are not exclusively secular and, interestingly, I never purported to be an expert in this field

How did you choose your particular brand, I wonder?

Clearly you answered this question already: even the 'experts' can't agree.

For me, mostly from empiricism. What works for me doesn't necessarily work for others - it is clear for example that some of the contributors in this thread might as well be members of an alien species. It is clear that many people are so less evolved in their thinking that they actually require guidance in the name of as yet unproven entities, which I imagine you'd agree is a pretty laughable situation...

Wow, when you stop presuming to know what makes me tick, get back to me, OK

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wow, when you stop presuming to know what makes me tick, get back to me, OK

What irony!

[Imran Siddiqui]

'circling the wagons' so to speak and standing shoulder to shoulder with your Christian brethren when they make unreasonable/hypocritical comments about another religion. But then, because you yourself are a turncloak from Islam, you happen to agree with those unreasonable comments yourself...

I wonder if you've even been reading this thread. You know all those posts where I mentioned Elok is being unfair and pre-judging Islam in a way he'd never judge Christianity? No, of course you haven't, because YOU DON'T WANT TO LISTEN. Debating would entail listening and not ascribe to someone a position which is 180 degrees opposite from what they've said.

[Sava]

Who says you have to listen in a debate?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says you have to listen in a debate?

This explains a lot about you .

[Sava]

The whole purpose is to win. I only "listen" in the sense that I'm picking apart whatever the other person is saying.

[rah]

I really like to listen but continued debating with people like BK can desensitize you to wanting to listen.

[Lorizael]

Wrong. I believe it works for me and that it is an ongoing process of refinement - usually this has meant, in the past, replacing inferior and simple-minded tenets, usually originating from Christian moral philosophy, as that is the environment in which I grew up, with superior, less two-dimension and black and white ones.

You know nothing, Lori. It is not necessarily that mine is correct - more that their moral philosophy is clearly incorrect. And I don't get 'very, very angry', I barely get angry at anything these days - more resignation at someone being ignorant or bigoted, usually.

You are one of the most judgmental, self-righteous, mean-spirited posters on this board. The idea that you don't think you know right from wrong (and that's what it means to think your moral philosophy is correct) is preposterous.

For example, if you believe that some moral tenets are "inferior and simple-minded" ones, then you already have a method of judgment which you believe is correct, or else you'd have no way of judging between moral philosophies. And, of course, if you can judge other moral philosophies as "clearly incorrect," the same applies.

Here's the thing, MOBIUS. You believe you already know right from wrong. The question for you is how to apply your sense of morality to the world. That's why you're able to judge certain tenets as being simple-minded or obviously incorrect. But in doing so, you're putting the cart before the horse. You have to figure out why your sense of right and wrong is correct in the first place, why you believe it has any validity at all.

Here's a simple example. You believe that, say, killing an innocent person without justification is wrong (I'm guessing). And few would argue with you about that one, to be sure. But why is it wrong, MOBIUS? If you have an answer to this question, and that answer is more than just, "It works for me," then there are tenets of your moral philosophy about which you believe you are correct.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava: That also explains a lot about you .

[Sava]

Sava: That also explains a lot about you .

Like I said, I'm interested in progress... not compromising with fools

[Imran Siddiqui]

So was Stalin .