Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Well it's no more ridiculous than gays and gay supporters demanding rights for SEXUAL MINORITIES, and then joining with the fundies and other bigots to bash other SEXUAL MINORITIES THEY DON'T LIKE.Somehow sexual minority has come to mean "interracial" and "gay"... please don't rock the boat folks with things like "evidence" and "logic" regarding any other obviously disgusting and immoral and rightly criminal actions.Everyone has bigotry about something. The one thing I give fundies credit for, they usually don't pretend they are objective and openminded about morality.I'm still carrying a lantern looking for an actual relativist at EvC, despite proclamations to the contrary by several evo members.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Relativism means that one understands there is more than one valid moral worldview. Essentially they all depend on initial feelings or understandings. A filter is formed from these and the world is viewed from that perspective.Although any morality might have internal problems (consistency), or faulty inputs (incorrect information about the world), one is not able to condemn another morality as objectively wrong, and another objectively more correct.As an aside, subjectivism is simply a stronger form of relativism (admitting it can come down to the individual level).A person can have a preferred moral system and use it to label activities for themself, as well as try and get people to follow that same moral system based on appeals to shared beliefs (emotions), and still be a relativist.Absolutism is the belief that there is one objectively true or best moral system which others are either following and so right, or defying and so wrong.A person who relies on their "gut" and so simply wings it, is not a relativist at all. They are amoralist in action, and usually ad hoc sophists in reasoning their motives afterward. Indeed in action they may appear to be more absolutist, than relativist since they usually demand that people fulfill their own expectations.People however may be intuitive, or have a moral system which does not rely on moral dictates (event proscribed right/wrong). That is a bit different. Taoists, animists, and many pagans in the past (including Greeks) would have used that system. I do as well. These are not necessarily relativist though may look to be.It is how one treats OTHER moral systems which determines if one is a relativist, not how one treats one's own actions.At EvC I have seen numerous examples of people decrying absolutism, completely ridiculing creos that stand up for it, and then turn around to announce that their own system is in fact the absolute standard. Hypocrites.This thread has so far provided a couple of good examples, though they are not as blatant as in the threads specifically devoted to discussions of moral abolutism/relativism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Can we please put this one to rest at EvC? You are equivocating. It has already been explained that the word "natural" is being used as "God's intent/expectation for how people should act in the world he created", not "what does in fact happen in nature".I have no problem with the rest of the challenges (though he's free to ad hoc his way out, or have a differing personal interpretation), but this one has been debunked as simply talking past buz.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So you are going to continue to throw a fit, pretending like you don't know what he means, until he changes words, simply because you don't like the fact that the word natural can have more than one meaning?Yeah, that's pretty mature and likely to work. Could I point out that the term "unnatural" in that context is already in the Bible and predates YOU? Maybe you should just live with it and if they try to equivocate then hold their feet to the fire?Yes I see they could use ungodly, but they don't. They use unnatural with a different context. Its English, they can do that as long as they don't equivocate.In this case you make yourself the person who is incorrect.Do you go into fits when homosexuals refer to themselves as gay?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No. In the Bible, references to nature come in a couple different contexts. When it uses "unnatural" or "against nature" to describe homosexual acts, it is pretty clearly indicating that someone is choosing to use something (in this case sexuality) against its intended use, which was designed by God.The Bible also uses it in the context of material, which is the quote you used as an example. Find quotes pertaining to homosexuality and "natural" and you'll see it isn't the same as what was used in your quote about the human body. Agreed, maybe you copped to much of a Buzz to think otherwise. I was simply pointing out that it was silly for berb to continue that same argument which has already been shown to be false.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh, but that's exactly what you didn't do.Let's say you have a valid point that it would be more accurate, maybe preferable for Buz to say "ungodly" instead of "unnatural".Okay.Isn't it equally accurate, maybe preferable to ask him to switch to this due to its accuracy/preference, rather than pretending you don't know what he means and restarting an argument based on that pretense?Don't blow a gasket.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This makes no sense. You can't acknowledge that the Bible says something is "against the intent of God"?I understand that you would reject that something really is against the intent of God, or that there is a God who had an intent, but what's wrong in accepting that a certain book in a certain faith says that something is against that God's intent?Unless you continue the pretense of not understanding what the Bible means, this really doesn't seem to make much sense. And if you do continue the pretense then you just subtract from your own cause by being unproductively annoying.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was being somewhet hyperbolic in my characterization. The point was if you really understood what Buz was saying, which you should have, in order to start an argument, it is rather childish. I was actually looking for the word "tantrum" to bring it out but it was late and I was tired.I apologize if my use of that language confused what I was trying to say. You are wrong, this really is it. You know how annoying it is when a creo carts out the "evo breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics" argument? Watching you cart out the "it must be natural because it happens in nature" is just as annoying.You will notice that my first reply was not as edgy. I simply asked if people (you in this specific case) could drop using it. It does make "us" look as bad as "them."And it is annoying, especially since it's already been addressed. While it may look like he is saying one thing to you, he is saying something else which is valid. Annoyed, not offended, though now my intelligence is starting to feel offended. Yes I am equating unnatural with against God's intent, because that is clearly the context that is used in the Bible and what Buz means. This has already been discussed in earlier threads in which you were a part.How can you say you hold the only possible use of the term "natural" or "unnatural"?As Phat just showed, in other parts of the Bible it uses "natural" in the sense of "material". If you aren't going to pretend to not understand what that means, why do so with buz.Why? Well I guess it's because you don't want someone to say something which sounds like it doesn't happen in nature. But that is a bit silly, and counterproductive. Let him say things how he wants, as long as you know what he is saying. But it is unnatural! Unnatural in the sense that Buz means it, not in the way you are imposing on his language. Don't you see you are creating a strawman?It is as ridiculous as me getting angry when someone calls homosexuals "gay", and I keep saying how I am a clinically depressed person and I know many other clinically depressed homosexuals and they are not in the least "gay". Then after it is explained that I am equivocating, I pop back up later to make the same argument. Of course you can argue these points with him. And why not argue against his "unnatural" statement in the way that you would these other points? You can argue there is no evidence for this God, nor that he did any of these things... or maybe that other Gods are real and they did none of these things.The one thig you cannot do, or should not do, is pretend he is saying something other than what he is saying, in order to attack that position.The Bible uses "natural" in many different ways. Its use of "nature" in the case of homosexuality is not "things that happen in nature", but rather "god's intended purpose for X's use" which as you have already pointed out is synonymous with "ungodly" or perhaps more appropriately "immoral" or "not normal".As an example, "its just not natural to be climbing trees at your age", yet clearly we one show men and women of all ages to be climbing trees. So we get what that would mean right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It could be the same thing from your point of view, or rather the definition you were using. I wasn't sure what you meant and so I tried to explain two different types of behaviors which might fall into the "relying on your gut", and show how one is amoral, and another is moral but could be relative or absolute.It seemed to me you might have been equating relativism with amorality (or lack of moral system) when you said relativity in action. There was a thread a long time ago where I outlined relative concepts, as well as argued against absolutism. I can't remember what their names were. I'd say just comb through topics for anything that says "moral relativism" or "absolute morality". Look forward to it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have already shown how this is not equal to his statement that God says something is "unnatural". You can continue to play ignorant all you want, but its your loss.Well at least I hope you are playing at ignorance. In any case you are now quite annoying, and ignorant, and for no visible purpose.Good luck with that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I only addressed one point in your post. I said the rest of your argument made sense. How is that attacking you?The reason I didn't bring up that point with anyone else is that no one I saw made that argument.It really was just that I am tired of seeing people equivocating simply to argue a non point. You don't have to answer whether you believe you were or not. I will now stop talking to you altogether.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Can you tell me where I was wrong? If not, please stop acting all high and mighty.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You provided a list of negative commentary by me all surrounding the initial mistake you made on one point of argument, and then subsequent denials that you made the mistake.If you look at the original post that I made #24, you will find that I start with a request can "we" put this to rest. It was an indicator that I was not just implicating you as the only maker of this mistake. After explaing the singular error I finish by saying... That clearly says that I thought everything else you argues was valid and pointed out Buz was likely to ad hoc (which is a fallacy) his way out of your challenges. Then repeat that "this ONE" has been debunked as talking past Buz.If you cannot see that I have not been picking on you, and rather a single logical error you made, then what can I say? It seems you have an issue with me, seeing me as always attacking you personally, not your mistakes, and in a previous post suggesting I don't pick on others.As it stands I am currently in an argument with crashfrog (over two threads), schraf (in one or two), Arach to some degree, and I think I just picked up Pink Sasquatch. All of these are people I respect in general, yet will butt heads, sometimes seriously (and with Schraf usually consistently).Yeah, if you want me to criticize some of your opinions and behaviors I can, but that does not motivate me to post to you. In this case I only posted to correct one logical fallacy you are making, and actually indicate I agreed the rest were valid. The criticism I gave of your error was not the same as in another thread where I defended a person's right to hold a contrary interpretation of something. The error you made is a straightforward logical one. It started as an equivocation, and once you continued with it after notification, it became a strawman fallacy. Buz's position is not what you are attacking.I am not sure how much plainer I can get with my language. In an effort to bring this to a satisfactory resolution I will try two extremely clear examples...You can look here to find the numerous definitions of natural, and unnatural. I will use unnatural for this example as they are less numerous, though I will note that the context of its use in the Bible indicates a slightly different meaning. That's okay for illustration.Unnatural-1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events. (i.e. they are not found in nature)Unnatural-2: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE, OR inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected (i.e. they are not in accordance with expectations of use or intentions of use)This is how the argument has run...Buz (quoting Bible): Homosexual sex is Unnatural-2.Berb: It can't be Unnatural-1, because we see it in nature.Me (to Berb): You are equivocating and so talking past Buz. Unnatural-2 is not the same as Unnatural-1 so your criticism is meaningless.Conclusion: You made an error. Whether homosexual activity is Unnatural-2 can only be refuted by challenging whether his God exists, or what that God intended (his interpretation of the Bible), and NOT challenging the idea it is Unnatural-1.I do not know how to be more obvious than this.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You somehow missed that in my post I stated that the actual definition in use (by Buz and the Bible) is slightly different than the dictionary def I was giving.The context of the Bible makes it not "according with normal HUMAN feelings", but rather "according with GODs feelings".I stated quite clearly that I was going ahead with the dictionary def (which was close) just to illustrate what I was saying.Yes, if Buz or the Bible had said that it was unnatural because HUMANS don't normally feel that way, he'd have a legitimate problem. Yes you did and your bobbing and weaving to avoid this point only devalues your ability to reason in my eyes. And what's stranger to me is that you continue to do it despite the fact that it obviously won't affect Buz. You are arguing with me for the legitimacy of commiting a fallacy that if it was directed at you, you would call him on.I just don't why you think this is worth it.In any case, you don't need to debate your case any more. People have seen my best argument against what you did, and they see your best argument for what you did. They can decide for themselves. Obviously neither of us are going to budge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Berb's bizarre analysis to the contrary, I am going to come out swinging on this.Essentially you have three sentences which make no logical progression at all. This is quite ironic since the first sentence is that humans are able to reason, and then you proceed not to.Let me do this semi-symbolically so you understand where the problem is...Hu = Humanity
Ho = Homosexuality
Re = Reason
NL = Not Logical
UN = UnNatural1) Hu can Re
2) Ho is NL
Therefore
3) Ho is UNBesides having to prove that homosexuality is in fact not logical (and that this differs in some way from hetero love), you have to show some link that makes not logical lead to not natural.As far as I can tell hetero love is generally illogical, it is all emotion. Even love for a God, faith itself, is not about logic. That makes it unnatural? How?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)