: You said he didn't like your hat - then you said you continue to wear it in class. That's tweaking him. Notice I didn't say tweaking the establishment is actually bad. I just said you shouldn't be suprised if he notices it and retaliates in kind. Human nature, you know.
It's good craic really isnt it?
: :: Shifted from Church and State to evolutionary theories there Stuart. Keep on subject. Incidentally why do consider the theory of a big bang and christianity to be incompatable? Someone had to manage the big bang afterall.
: Actually, I'm right on subject and you didn't read carefully. Many of the same people who deny the existence of God (any god), also speak moral absolutes against capitalism, meat eating, and animal testing. I need to hear the basis of one's morality if he is to engage in such resolute proclaimations. I find it very interesting when people suggest that humanity is a natural occurance and then make moral judgments.
What about natural rights? Or natural law theories? They are of capitalist atheistic enlightenment origin.
Besides the consistant secularist who is arguing for the divorce of church and state wont be partisan enough to support state assisted atheism.
: If there is no ecclesiastical basis for morality, then operative morality is only the current consensus of any given culture. That consensus is usually expressed by law. When morality is subject to the dictates of popular opinion, right and wrong are vagueries that change with the ages causing the law to change with it. I have no problem with this until I start hearing a small minority (Marxists, greens, vegans, ...) begin to use morality as a tool (a hammer) to beat the majority into submission. It is an effective tool because it purely manipulates emotion but applies no reason.
They, the greens etc., learned that from the Conservatives...
: If there is no God (any god), and therefore, no ecclesiastical, unchanging, unalterable standard of morality, there is no particular reason, other than a desire to be socially acceptable, why a man shouldn't do exactly as he pleases. The concept of moral absolutes, the language of absolutes, and the judgment that follows in a godless world is misguided and unfounded.
Really? Arent we all rational utilitarian maximisers? Our morality could be the consequence of natural notions about 'doing unto others as we would have them do unto us'.
: :: I do not believe science has anything to gain from discrediting beliefs that is a paranoid religious notion, what interests have the religious in disproving science? A spectre is haunting religion, the spectre of Gallileo.
: I don't believe science, as a singular entity, has anything to gain by this either. Do you, however, suggest that certain scientists do not work to disparage belief? I'm not paranoid, Lark. I can actually read. Unfortunately, those scientist that do disparage belief are trying to revenge the excesses of close-minded theologians of not only today, but centuries back.
Not just of centuries back, I've read the creationism nonsense...
: I actually encourage the next Gallileo. Belief didn't suffer one iota as a result of his findings. Only the dogma of those who would use religion to control people was affected.
And that dogma persists. I'll respond to the rest later must go...