That's very interesting Elvellyn, I never thought about it that way before. :)

Though I agree that we can't be 100 percent sure of everything, I do think we can be sure enough of some things to call them facts. Gravity, for example, is something that we're sure enough about that we can say it's a scientific law. We can say that gravity exists, that's a fact.

Then again, some of our ancestors were absolutely sure that the world was flat. They didn't have the knowledge available to us today to show them otherwise. In the future, there will be scientific facts we're sure of now proven wrong, unkowns will be answered, and new discoveries made. Some old facts will be discarded and some new facts will arise.

But none of this has to do with moral rightness or wrongness. These are judgements made in people's hearts, and by societies. We often base these beliefs on facts, or other beliefs.

My belief that being gay is not the slightest bit sinful or wrong is based on observations of people, and my heart, and a bit on my own society. I'm from a society, and family, liberal enough that it's okay to disagree with the majority. Many people don't have this luxury and have to hide their beliefs.

I also think discrimination is wrong. I think of discrimination as the violation of someone's rights. I do not think imprisoning a criminal is discrimination, because the imprisonment is based on the person's actions - by violating some of the rights of others, he has temporarily forfeited some of his own rights. (ie. that of mobility).

Many people who oppose gay marriage think many other forms of discrimination are wrong. There isn't a clear line of people who do discriminate and people who don't. Our own governments protect the rights of many vulnerable people, but the voting age is still 19, thereby discriminating against youth. But that's a rant for another thread. ;)

The government has logical reasons and thought-out beliefs to not allow children and teens the right to vote. Personally, I think it's still discrimination, and wrong. Many people who oppose gay marriage also have logical reasons and thought-out beliefs. I still think this is also discrimination, and I still think this is wrong. My point in all this is that people who discriminate, in a broad sense of the word, aren't necessarily hateful or irrational. But they still discriminate.

Funny you chose Gravity....this something we (scientific community) like to write down as a "known", while in fact WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS....of the forces of the universe that generally are discussed (please lets keep it simple with just the usual four '4') gravity appears the weakest, but in facts shapes our solar system, galaxy, & universe....the strong 'weak' force is a fun play on reality. My point is, professors are absolutely certain about gravity and will teach it to you with no hint of ‘questioning’, but in fact they serious physic-dudes/dudettes of our time are saying "Wait a minute," just what's going on here...EXACTLY?" :confused:

Elvellyn had a great point, and is was short so we'll give Elvellyn a break concerning the issue Nurvingiel brought up...the everyday nuts and bolts reality we 'live with' (perceive). We can count on the sun rising everyday for us as our planet spins us around for the view....it's a fact for us (NOW) that it happens everyday...good point Nurv...I think the difference between these two outlooks is 'distance'...one is looking at the hand, the other at the arm, and still others look at why the body is there at all or how.



Here's the thing we all think about, our moral behavior can be based upon how we view the importance/consequential LIFE we feel we have. If I'm just a bunch of chemical reactions all made by chance then a hierarchy of moral stance seems obtuse for humans/aliens/animals/plants/Butterbeer. But if in fact I believe the my existence might just mean a little bit more than a lucky role of DNA several millennia ago, I would definitely approach others and even myself with greater care.

Well, I'd say you turned out 'most excellent' and your parents are likely very proud of you...smart and kind are admirable qualities if not rare.


Well said, better than I could have worded it.

Tricky topic with some, faith vs thoughtful considerations issue (there's a topic to delve into sometime)


Kids already have enough to worry about, eh? ;) I don't think kids should have a vote, but that doesn't mean there isn’t a barge full of discerning teenagers out there that definitely can think for themselves and make mature voting decisions.....if only life were perfect to account for everybody and their needs...sigh.

Excellent thoughts EB! Very insightful. :)

That's a very good point, good thing I did choose gravity then! True, we don't have the faintest clue how it works. But it is a fact that gravity exists, at least. I think that's okay though. I don't have the first clue how a Finnish payphone works, but I know they exist. :D
Or on a more scientific side, there are theories, but we do not know how a tree over 30m tall gets water to its highest branches and leaves, but we do know it happens. On a side note, it's quite humbling to think trees have absolutely no use for the human race whatsoever, but we need trees very very badly.

Very thoughtful EB. :)

I also believe there's more to humanity than nuts and bolts and DNA. Art and literature and music and insight and conversation doesn't come from DNA. :)

Aww, thanks! :o Interestingly, I would say the same about Rian. From her postings and PMs, I would say Ri is a very kind and intellingent person, and yet on the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality, we largely disagree. (We do agree that being gay isn't wrong at least.)
And EB, from your postings and PMs, I'd say you are a kind and intelligent person. Maybe we aren't so rare eh? :)

<quote snip>

[OTness]Yes, perhaps children shouldn't have to vote. But then, they should at least have the option. So should teens. Consider that when I was 17, I really, really wanted to vote in the provincial election. Like many British Columbians, I was embarrassed and infuriated by the recent scandals of the government. Happily, the opposition party offered a great alternative and a good candidate (before they changed the electoral boundaries on me anyway). But I was too young to vote! WTF!? I had had a job and paid taxes. Should I not have gotten a say in how they were spent?
Anyway, the party I was cheering for won overwhelmingly. They won 77 of 79 seats, the largest majority in history.

Well, I gotta go. But we should move this to the voting thread. The one Afro-elf started, I forget what it's called. Cherrio!

I did get your point about how the government discriminates with laws though they are based upon (sometimes) thought-out reasoning......again, I wonder how even get along at all on this planet we do such a horrible job being individually considerate.

I see what you're saying, but I think you might possibly be referring to proving a negative. In order to conclusively prove a negative, you have to be able to know everything, everywhere, at all times, in order to know that this thing never existed. IOW, the only being that could prove that God does NOT exist is, well, GOD! :D OTOH, you can prove a postive without having to know everything, everywhere, at all times - as soon as you find it, you can stop looking!

Yes, we certainly can't claim to know things exactly, but with scientific testing, we can know them with reasonable accuracy, or at least start the knowing process. The important parts of the theory of evolution, however, are mostly outside of real scientific testing; it's mostly conjecture about artifacts from the past and/or processes that are similar to conjectural ones but not right in the important parts.

True, which opens up some other discussions ... :D

I hope you can join in.
Good to see you guys, Nurv and EB!

There's two "traps" - you're choosing to avoid the first one, but by doing this you've fallen into the second one.

Not that I consider them "traps" - to me, they're just simple questions that I want the answer to, but you just seem so nervous about the questions I ask! You either call them shell games, or traps, or say I twist things - it continues to amaze me how you react so defensively to simple questions I ask :( It makes me think you don't like the answers that are coming into your head, so you go to great lengths to not answer the questions ...

Although it's fascinating to watch you avoid a simple question like the one I've been trying to get an answer to, I'll stop asking it now, though, since your refusal to answer has already answered another question I had.

Commentary to follow - gtg take the kids and meself for some shots for Ecuador ...

spare me your clever traps. Ive stated again and again wrong isnt a relevant term in this discussion. Not for me. So it does you no good to force me into using it anyway when its NOT RELEVANT to this discussion for me. How bout we get into the actual meat of the topic and not into irrelevant moral diversions.

but determining what is "meat" and what isn't is also important ... and subjective ...

i used this as an argument before, but i got ignored, but, IIRC, the quote goes thusly:

and how do we "know" we are alone in the universe? :confused:

errm, it's a film about aliens...:confused:

;)

True but as another example: no one's arguing that gravity doesn't exist, but in order to prove to prove that gravity alone is what holds the world together, you would have to prove that there are no other forces doing so. Does that make sense?

As far as children/teens voting,it is important to understand that voting is a responsibility. You can't have government officials going around interviewing 11 year olds to see if they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of voting (well I suppose it is possible, just not practical.) So they have to set a standard for everyone to follow. The sad thing is there are probably some 15 year olds who would be more informed voters that some 20 year olds. But regardless, it's not really discrimination.

I have bumped Afro-elf's thread "Should everyone of legal age be allowed to vote?"

Chrys, I think what Rian is saying is that we don't know we're alone in the universe.

(will rejoin thread early next week - gone for the weekend!)

Yes exactly!

It is from Men In Black - a movie about aliens that are kept from the public by the MIB organization.

It is just an example - that we "knew" we were alone in the universe, when in fact we were not.


think about the quote

Yes, how do we know that we are alone? WE DONT - and in the movie we aren't.

How did we know that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe? Well, we didn't really but we thought that we did and this was the held belief.

You see?

lol!! Oh good! You can argue with me while I do other things. Except I have a wife.;)

Back from a wonderful weekend in the mountains with my husband!
*Sigh* - I wish it was longer than a weekend ... oh well! At least we had a weekend :)

OK - about the MIB quote - "1000 years ago we knew the earth was flat, 500 years ago we knew the earth was the centre of the univers, 200 years ago we knew god created men, yesterday you knew we were alone in the univers, just think what we will know tomorrow."

My objection was to the TYPE of "know" statements they were throwing together in that sentence and then inferring that they belong in the same category of "know"-ness :D and that intelligent people now "know" they're ALL wrong.

The last statement (we're alone in the universe) has obviously been proven wrong, given the premise of the movie (great movie IMHO, btw! I love that line he says in that same scene - something like "we're the government, Ma'am - we don't have a sense of humor!" :D )

The first (flat earth) had been shown wrong by inference through calculation, and then by actual observation when we started space travel.

The second (center of universe) has been pretty well shown wrong, at least as much as possible (IOW, we can't step outside our universe and observe it). So why throw in that third one (god created men) like it's in the same category when it most definitely is NOT? :rolleyes:

So I was pointing out how silly it was to positively claim to "know" that we were alone in the universe in the first place! It's entirely different from "knowing" that the earth is flat or we're in the center of the universe, and it's also a "negative" claim of the type that is virtually unproveable, unless you're omniscient and omnipresent. And it's also rather silly to claim to "know" that God created man - but even sillier to claim that He didn't! (given the problems I pointed out earlier with proving a negative).

Yes, so that's why it wouldn't be worded that way ("gravity alone"). It would be something like this: "There appears to be a force, which we shall call gravity, which seems to have the following characteristics on earth (list characteristics)... "

At this point, I'm going to make some observations on the partial birth abortion discussion that IRex and I have been having...

Everyone has what is often called a worldview, even if they may not call it that, or even if they haven't thought it through very well or can't even put it into words. A worldview is basically how we interpret the world around us based on what we think is objectively true. This affects how we make what are commonly called our moral decisions, among other things.

You can start putting together a picture of a person's worldview by asking them "why" questions about their moral decisions, or asking them if people "should" or "should not" do certain things, or listening to them state their opinions about what they think is right or wrong. A worldview is basically a person's OPINION about the actual state of the universe, including things that have happened in the past (and are thus totally unverifiable/unproveable) and things that exist/don't exist outside of our current ability to observe (and are thus ALSO totally unverifiable/unproveable).

IMO, some good tests to judge the soundness of different worldviews are:
1. does it jive with the evidence I know about;
2. is it internally logically consistent; and
3. does it hold up when "the rubber meets the road".

(more in a bit - gtg...)

Well, after asking over and OVER again if things like partial birth abortion and injustice are wrong (not wrong according to our constitution, but wrong in IRex's eyes), and after IRex refusing over and over to answer such a simple question, I finally get the answer quoted above, from which I'll conclude that IRex thinks it is wrong to be unjust.

The next natural question would be, WHY, in his opinion, is it wrong? From previous posts, he seems to base rightness or wrongness on whether or not something can be scientifically shown to be harmful or not. Of course, that brings up the simple question, which IIRC he refused to answer, of, is it wrong to cause harm? These questions and his responses start to illustrate the logical and empirical problems that I see with non-theistic worldviews. For starters, I'll discuss 2 problems that I see:

Problem 1 - IRex's denial of the applicability of right/wrong to these things (a quote from him: "Ive stated again and again wrong isnt a relevant term in this discussion. Not for me."
Problem 2 - IRex's attempt to tell others they are wrong if their opinion differs from his, in spite of Problem 1 listed above.

And a restatement of the 3 tests that I think are valuable in evaluating a person's worldview:
Test 1. does it jive with the evidence I know about;
Test 2. is it internally logically consistent; and
Test 3. does it hold up when "the rubber meets the road".

Problem 1 discussed in next post ...