Nah. Never heard of it in my life.

Seriously, though. Good game, and the politics are rarely quiet. It's an incredibly fun nation simulator.

Oh yeah, and since I totally need to advertise while I am at it, join GATO.

Rand_Of_Andor,

Actually, I made a statement about the Kuran not having any valid answers. Fox commented on this and I replied. then you made a comment disagreeing with my original assertion and again stating that there was some subjective quantity to validity.

I have no desire to re-state my assertions again. You can read them simply by viewing this thread's history. It seemed to me that you made statements that were without foundation or supporting explanation that I could see and evaded the point being argued.

You then started throwing insulting words around and admitted to becoming over-heated yourself. You accused me of doing the same thing to you (I assume out of your frustration). When I asked where I had made similar gestures towards you, you could not cite any. You offered me a conditional apology (i.e. "I'm sorry if I've done something") when I had already enumerated your mis-deeds (i.e. said why you should be sorry). You then expected me to apologise to you, seeing as you had said sorry to me (in your eyes). When I refused, you then accused me of being childish. May I point out that you were moderated for an insulting post within this exchange.

Finally, an entirely alternative debate was suggested by you, who thoughtfully kicked off with a supposition of what I think, yet did not include what you yourself thought because of your fear I may mock you.

Then, as if nothing had happened and the previous debate had been going swimmingly well, you wish to continue from square one.

I see no point in discussing this further with you for these reasons:

1. We have already had a good go.

2. I don't want discussion to end in someone throwing insults at me again.

3. Your recollection of how this started is not reliable - just check back in the thread!

4. I feel your fear of my mocking you would stifle your true feelings.

4. Many of the points you made during our exchange have no substantiation or explanation.

5. My point in saying the "Koran does not have valid answers" was to offer the writings of the Koran to objective criticism. It was not to have a 3 page argument to defend the true meaning of words.

Enough said?

RationalAtheist

==I suppose you're correct. Looking back, this did not go so well, and wasn't really needed.

Yet again, you allude to things you don't quantify: My "repeated insults" and demeaning manner actually refer to yours, if my theory on your projection is correct.

Can I just check something out here? That is:

Without properly answering my question - (the fundamental reason for our exchange) - about this "subjective validity" of yours, you'd like to discuss something totally seperate with me that is "moral objectivity" now.

You begin by attempting to state my position on this new topic without explaining your own reasoning for changing the subject, what your beliefs on this topic are and your beliefs on this topic are sound.

You now state the reason for your witholding your piont of view on the topic was that I would mock you?

If the above is true (and I can only infer that it is by what you write), we should not be having this discussion at all.RationalAtheist

==Yes, you are quite right. This has veered off course, so we should probably start from square one of the argument then. That fine?

This all started when I stated that Fox found something valid, yet incorrect, at which point you stated that this is not possible. Valid cannot be incorrect, otherwise it is not valid. I believe this is the point you have been trying to get across?

I then proceeded to attempt to explain that one can find something valid without it being objectively valid, based on situations in which there is not one clear and most valid answer objectively. So why don't we begin at that point again?

Do let me know what I've said that I should be apologising over.RationalAtheist

==Arguing with you over things you should apologize over? No thank you.

Don't apologize, then.

You say debate is not worth demeaning someone because you disagree with them, yet that is exactly what you did.RationalAtheist

==Hence the above apologies.

I think "debate" implies the clarification and explanation of one's assertions and rebuttals. Do you?RationalAtheist

==I do.

I have been warned about my international use of "irony" before - I found your answer on "the assessment of moral validity" was not particularly eloquent...RationalAtheist

==And that's fine. But your repeated insults and manner in which you demean even my arguments make this debate that much more agonizing.

This new tack on "objective morality" that interests you so: You start by telling me what I think about it, rather than why you think what you think. Could you be wrong in pre-supposing what I think? I'd say you are. Telling people what they think is a far weaker argument than explaining what you think.RationalAtheist

==I assumed they were your thoughts on the manner, and when I first typed it out I did indeed include that it was my supposition I had gathered. However, I was quite sure that if I did so, you'd again mock the statement. So I didn't bother adding it in.

But please, go ahead and state your piece on the matter.

In addition to the reasons above, I will not contribute to your new "objective morality" thread, as I restrict myself to only debate in religious threads on these forums.RationalAtheist

==Then forget about the other thread, I suppose.

Please remember that its you using all the emotive and insulting words here... Have you heard of transference?RationalAtheist

==And I was adult enough to apologize for my transgressions. If you'd like, I can apologize again. Debate is not worth demeaning another person just because you disagree with them. It gets in the way of an exchange of ideas.

I certainly find it worth noting that you did not at least reciprocate for your own words yet continue to speak of my own behavior.

Sorry? You'd like me to discuss objective morality now? Why don't you go first, now you've managed to answer my question on "how one assesses moral validity" so eloquently?RationalAtheist

==Yes, I think it would be an interesting topic to discuss. I am of the belief that the moral objectivity you seem to hold belief in is non-existent. And you hold belief that morality is for the most part objective.

I'll try making the thread after getting some coursework done, either tomorrow or the day after.

Yet you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your assertion that subjective validity does exist. You have simply made incorrect statements instead, such as "to murder someone if they step on your shoes is valid" without any proper explanation.RationalAtheist

==No, I have. You're just refusing to understand it.

You have also inferred definitions of validity, like "Soundness" and "Justice" do not imply objectivity but are subjective terms. Rather than "try and crucify you", I'm linking to undisputable definitions; I am trying to show you that these terms can only be used in an objective sense, if you'd bother to click the new links I gave, you'd see that.RationalAtheist

==And if I were capable of copying and pasting, I would reply with like Dictionary entries. However, I cannot.

You maintain that I am silly, this debate is a farce, and continue to demean it (by prefixing our debate with "little" in your last post), I am at a loss to understand why you waste your own time on this topic, unless you can't bear to be wrong.RationalAtheist

==And now you're attempting to mock me further by referring to me as some sort of headstrong fool? For having rational in your name, you seem to blow up quite a bit, and jump to unnecessary conclusions.

I referred to it as little because it's a side conversation. I called it a farce because you were complaining about a simple use of a word, and then when I contested your point you called my character into question. If anyone's being a mature adult here, it's certainly not yourself.

I'd disagree entirely on that barmy bit in your long post equating morality and objectivity with happiness(!)

Your argument that a person who contests there is any valid reason for murder over the scuff of a shoe - would countered by predicting the murderer to be committed for insanity when the case came to trial. This would indicate no valid reasoning proven, or their subjective validation of their crime being meaningless.

Can I ask you how would one assess validity?RationalAtheist

==In a moral situation like that? It depends.

They can argue that he's insane if and when he was brought to trial for his case. But that doesn't make his murder objectively a bad thing.

I think there's an underlying topic here that might be more interesting, concerning objective morality (or its lack thereof), and rather than polluting this topic with this debate, would you rather create a new topic? Or perhaps continue on this point?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]If one is to understand the Bible as it was originally meant then one cannot come to believe that the Bible and Evolution can coexist. To believe in Evolution would contradict many aspects of the creation mentioned in the Bible. Only recently is Genesis pre-flood taken allegorically in the way that it is. If one is to be a Bible believing Christian then one cannot compromise what the book says.mindstorm

Why is it that when one person who either is a Christian or claim to be a Christian says or does something somehow people take it to mean all people believe that? An example is the Pope, he has officially endorced Evolution. Because he says something doesn't mean I am to believe it. According to him I'm not even a Christian...

so, other than it being in the book of Genesis, why do you believe the story about Noah's ark? do you endorse a global flood theory?

Yes, I do indeed endorse the global flood theory. As in two of every kind (not species) of animal got on the ark and 7 of some. As in every animal and person outside the ark was distroyed.

==Oh, you're going to hate me by the end of this.

So basically there are billions and billions of species of animals. There are several thousand species of, say, beetle. If this flood occured, say, four to five thousand years ago, then what you're telling me is that the four hundred thousand species of beetle, then, evolved over this time period? That would mean that there are one hundred species of beetle formed every year, which is approximately one species every half month.

This is an absurd evaluation, because if this were true when a woman had a child it would be an entirely new organism. But this is indeed not so.

[QUOTE="carrot-cake"]God created the earth billions of years ago, and everything evolved into what we have today.
But what created God!? notconspiracy

Depends on which "God" you're talking about.

To the above valid/invalid/correct/incorrect discussion, it all depends on the nature of the assertion.

Where there is a definite answer, you either give the correct, valid answer...otherwise it is incorrect.

So if I ask, what is 2 + 2 and you say 6, that is an invalid answer because it is clearly incorrect.

However, where there is no definite answer, you can have a valid answer that may be viewed as incorrect by some parties.

Saying that 7 + 5 = 10 is simply not a valid assertion at all, but saying that X religion in correct is a valid assertion I guess.

luke1889

==This is basically what I was saying. RationalAtheist, if you find you cannot understand what I am saying, please read this post and see if it helps.