Some stuff from the Book

[Anonymous]

I'm only telling the truth, you can take it or leave it.

As for me being closed minded, well since i know the truth why would I keep my mind open so to allow Satan in.

What does being a religious fanatic have to do with blowing stuff up?

[Anonymous]

August:

You are correct in your assumption. I do have a relativistic viewpoint on things, and I do not believe there is a such thing as absolute truth. There is a reason for this belief--depending on where in the world you are, all different cultures have a tendency to believe that their way is the best way. Forgive me if I am trying to explain something you may already know, but this is the basis for ethnocentrism, or complete pride in the way you do something without any regard to the fact that someone else may have a different viewpoint. Ethnocentrism is to a community or country what greed and malice are to an individual, so I cannot say I have complete faith that the way country A deals with problems is any better or more correct than the way country B deals with what it sees as problems...in this aspect, I have been dubbed anti-American, anti-God, anti-Religion, or anti-anything else you can think of. I know what I am, though, and I have a tendency to be against anything that has "-centrism" as a suffix--egocentrism, ethnocentrism, etc. Who on earth says this religion is the best religion? Who gives anyone the right to make the claim that "I am definitely right, you are definitely wrong, and I refuse to believe anything that goes against my personal philosophies because MINE ARE THE BEST!" It's somewhat disturbing to me that so many people will claim they are doing things the only way they can or should be done--that's exactly the way the Muslim extremists must've felt on September 11. "This is the only way," I can hear them saying as they crash jumbo jets into the WTC and Pentagon. I hear the same attitude coming from Christian extremists, and it all boils down to a mixing pot of particular attitudes that I thought were un-Christian: Hatred. Prejudice. Stereotype. Egocentrism. Ethnocentrism. Extreme patriotism (such as a willingness to do anything asked of you on the basis that it reflects pride in your country.) Bigotry. At what point did the schools and families fail the people of this country and forget to teach the golden rule? "Do unto others as you would want done unto you." Whatever happened to that? It completely dissolves in a solution of religious fanaticism like sugar in water.

Don't get me wrong...there are certain themes, morals, and values that run through every culture like a thread weaving thorough all of humanity. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall honor thy mother and father. Things of that nature tend to be universal, and I think they are the end result of intense philosophic thinking on the Golden Rule. I wouldn't say these morals and values are concrete, though--there are always circumstances that would warrant certain behavior; hence the relativistic viewpoint. If someone is trying to kill you or your family, most cultures would accept your decision to "kill or be killed." If your mother and/or father beats you into a coma, most cultures would expect that you wouldn't grow into an adult who honors his or her mother or father.

Relativity. There are always circumstances that warrant certain behaviors that, if one were to step back and look at the behavior without first understanding the circumstances, the entire picture could become skewed.

Vvart...I accept your views regardless of whether or not I believe in them. Relatively speaking, you were probably raised to believe there is no other way besides your way. However, I do have one thing for you to comment on: somewhere in the Bible, it is said that you can only enter the gates of heaven if you have the mind of a child. Your earlier response:

As for me being closed minded, well since i know the truth why would I keep my mind open so to allow Satan in.

Children have an amazingly open mind until they are forced into certain beliefs, customs, courtesies, etc. Was the author of the Bible implying that children are susceptible to Satan like a snowboarder is susceptible to a cold? If so, then why would the mind of a child get you into the gates of heaven, considering the mind of a child is the easiest to let Satan in? I am extremely confused by this view. Could you elaborate a little?

What does being a religious fanatic have to do with blowing stuff up?

Uhh...type into any search engine these words: "religious" and "terrorism." If you are not so admittedly closed-minded as to let the websites in, you may be a little shocked to see what has been going on in the world since you decided to close your mind to "Satan's grasp"--a.k.a., curiosity, consciousness, philosophy, self-improvement, acceptance, tolerance, First Amendment rights, the rights of the people, liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness, and whatever else implies Satan has control.

[Felgar]

Scooby, (can I call you Scooby? )

I've been busy lately and didn't notice some of your posts, but having read through most of this thread I'd like to interject. The curious thing about your 'open mindedness' is that it's so easily subject to falsities. What good is it to believe everything? Esspecially considering that most of our human wisdom (aka foolishness) is simply lies from Satan? There's only one way to break through Satans' cloud, and that's with the Truth; with the Word of God. (more on truth in a bit)

1 Corinthians 1:18-20
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Don't get me wrong, scientific study is great - it is a blessing to have our standard of living that is enabled by such study. But don't be so proud as to forget that our blessings are endowed by God, and without him we can accomplish nothing. Further, all the scientific knowledge in the world does not give us Salvation (the message of the cross) - do you see how God made the wisdom of the world foolish with the cross?

I have my own personal standards, but those standards have been downgraded to those of a chimpanzee from Christians on this forum in the past, and I guess I'm curious as to where I am going wrong as to the standards of what it takes to be a "good Christian."

Well I can set you straight on what the Bible tells us is a "good Christian."

Matthew 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Matthew 22:36-38
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.

Skooby, I emplore you to consider what is most important. You are saved by grace through Faith in Jesus - not by your all-encompassing knowledge of worldly religions.

I do have a relativistic viewpoint on things, and I do not believe there is a such thing as absolute truth.

Indeed, you have shown everyone the danger of seeking the wrong thing first. The danger is that you become so mired in the lies of the world that you are blinded to the truth - even more so, you are blinded that there even exists truth!!! Well, it does exist, and its found within the Word of God.

John 14:6-7
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Not only is God defined AS Truth, but further to that He is the answer to salvation. It's all right there! The question is how open-minded are you really? Open-minded enough to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and start seeking Him?

If you do, I promise that you will also see the Truth that so many of us know. Why? Because upon accepting Jesus you are filled with the Holy Spirit, who reveals the truth to us. Satan has no hold, against the power of the Lord and neither do his lies.

John 14:16-19
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

[Prodigal Son]

skoobie, on the big bang thing, sorry, i meant atheists and scientists. there are many scientists turning away from the big bang because it supports creationism. i'm very busy this week but first chance i get, i'll find that information for you.

[Anonymous]

To get into the Kingdom of Heaven we aren't suppose to have the mind of a child, but we are suppose to have the trust and faith that a child would have in Christ.

Having a mind of a child is exactly what Paul was telling us not to have because now we know the truth and with the truth we no longer will be tricked into believing false philosophies that Satan creates.

Being religious has nothing to do with blowing stuff up, thats blatant stereotyping, there are many fanatics so to speak who haven't committed a violent act in their life.

[Kurieuo]

I do have a relativistic viewpoint on things, and I do not believe there is a such thing as absolute truth.

No you don't. That is, you don't have a relativistic viewpoint, and you do believe in absolute truths.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Being religious has nothing to do with blowing stuff up, thats blatant stereotyping

I wasn't talking about being religious, vvart. I was trying to say that most of the things that are being blown up just happened to be blown up by religious people, regardless of the religion. Sorry for any confusion.

The curious thing about your 'open mindedness' is that it's so easily subject to falsities. What good is it to believe everything?

I am a skeptic, which naturally means I believe very little of what I hear. That's a far cry from believing everything. I was a myth buster long before the show made such a thing popular...don't swim on a full stomach? Things like that, I have never believed. "You must do it because I am your mother (or father)?" I never fell for that one, either. That's not a very good explanation. I am a doubter of authority if the authority is questionable, and to me, God is a questionable authority figure. So far, I haven't been struck by lightning or forced into hard labor or sacrificed at the Altar of the Ram, so I am pretty confident God isn't too upset with me...heck, He may even find me humorous on occasion.
Felgar, you have some great philosophies, but they just happened to be derived from a book I don't take for 'truth' at face value. For metaphoric value, as I've said, the Bible is a very great book and a wonderful place to derive some philosophies. But being a skeptic, it comes naturally for me to not believe every word of what I am reading at face value. That's been a mystery to me so far: when someone says they are an atheist or an agnostic, why is it someone tells them they are wrong because the Bible tells them they are wrong...what difference does it make (to an atheist or an agnostic) what the Bible says if they only take it as a parable written in the language of the universe?

Once again, this website is (at least, what I've gathered) supposed to prove God's existence through [/i]science. Not through the words of the Bible. I came here with the intention of learning about the science behind God, but I just get more Bible quotes. They are nice quotes, and they are a good philosophy, but I do not believe in them as the ultimate, one-and-only truth necessary. Where is the science?

If you want to have Intelligent Design taught as a valid scientific theory, you must first prove to the scientific community that it is valid. You will never succeed by telling a scientific review board that "God said He is real, therefore, He is real" or "Jesus said God is real, therefore God is real." It simply can't work.

Back to earlier words from August, which I forgot to comment:

The TOE does not include the origin of life

Sure it does. "Star Dust." It may sound funny, but there is plenty of evidence proving that all the elements of earth (including each and every element inside of mankind) also exist in some stars, on comets (possibly...this one is still in its experimental stage with the STARDUST mission), and/or on meteors. This is, as many conservatives like to say, "only a theory," but it is well backed by visible evidence--something ID cannot be backed by.

That's all for now. I'm tired.

[August]

Skooby, I'm not too eager to enter this debate with you, since you seem to have a very strong preconception that you are right, and everyone else is wrong. So I fear that no mattter what I say or show, it will make no difference. However, since you seem intent on spreading half-truths, and I cannot leave that unanswered to our wider audience, here goes.

Quote:
The TOE does not include the origin of life
Sure it does. "Star Dust." It may sound funny, but there is plenty of evidence proving that all the elements of earth (including each and every element inside of mankind) also exist in some stars, on comets (possibly...this one is still in its experimental stage with the STARDUST mission), and/or on meteors. This is, as many conservatives like to say, "only a theory," but it is well backed by visible evidence--something ID cannot be backed by.

To start with, you had better let the rest of the evolution scientists know that you have changed their theory for them. The ToE describes the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Having all the elements together does not mean life will automatically start from them, the process of abiogenesis has been attempted many times without success in a laboratory. These chemical elements do not include any sort of DNA coding, and thus no mechanism by which to activate proteins. Life is also dependant on very specific conditions, which is extremely rare in the universe, and have not yet been identified any place other than earth. It may well exist elsewhere, but it is at this point, and with our current understanding, unlikely.

ID is backed by plenty of visible evidence, through the description of irreducibly complex systems and morphological novelty. Attempts to describe irreducible complexity through naturalist means has failed. In fact, in the 9 years since the first description of IC was published, there have been only a few attempts to refute it, and it amounted to nothing more than hand-waving and improbable assumptions.

But since you don't believe in truth, I don't think that you are convinceable.

By the way, I have taken great offence in your choice to equate the 9/11 murderers to Christians. You are just another person who has no interest in having a rational discussion here, you came here to accuse us of being religious fanatics who like to murder people. In my very first post I asked you this, and you answered that you were interested in open dialogue, and did not come here to insult us, only to revert back to a childish rant about how bad Christians are. We are quite prepared to provide reasonable answers, but your bigotry against Christians will only allow you to to be dismissive.[/quote]

[Kurieuo]

Skoobie, I am simply amazed by the fact you consider yourself to take a relativist viewpoint, but then you are always making absolute truth claims (including the claim "I do not believe there is a such thing as absolute truth"). Surely this is the height of irrational thought?

Kurieuo.

[Felgar]

So far, I haven't been struck by lightning or forced into hard labor or sacrificed at the Altar of the Ram, so I am pretty confident God isn't too upset with me...heck, He may even find me humorous on occasion.

And if you had been subjected to that, you'd just be saying "I haven't experienced God - where is this God of love you keep talking about. What about all the pain?"

My question to you is: What do you want from God? He blesses you with wealth and a very comfortable life, yet the more blessed we are as people, the less we seem to seek Him. (Likely you'll ask for some incontravertible 'proof', but then, where would be the faith in that?)

Now God doesn't ask for blind faith - but rather he asks that you seek him first. And this is what I've been saying; you have to take that first step on faith. There's a great song by Petra who's lyrics contain: "Thinking if I could see, I would believe. But somebody said believe and you will see."

That's been a mystery to me so far: when someone says they are an atheist or an agnostic, why is it someone tells them they are wrong because the Bible tells them they are wrong...what difference does it make (to an atheist or an agnostic) what the Bible says if they only take it as a parable written in the language of the universe?

That's a good point. In general I'm careful not to say 'you're wrong,' but rather to say "I believe you a wrong, and here's why I believe it. I believe it because I trust the Word of God, which says it."

Can you see that distinction? Granted sometimes it comes out a little wrong, or for the sake of brevity I may not have always made that clear - but it's always my intention.

The other time it serves to quote the Bible to an atheist is to break a misconception that they may have. When a false statement or belief about Christianity is stated, it's valid to point to the Bible for proof that the statement is incorrect.

Once again, this website is (at least, what I've gathered) supposed to prove God's existence through [/i]science. Not through the words of the Bible. I came here with the intention of learning about the science behind God, but I just get more Bible quotes. They are nice quotes, and they are a good philosophy, but I do not believe in them as the ultimate, one-and-only truth necessary. Where is the science?

I think you're sort of missing the point. Science will never 'prove God's existance.' But what it can do is very much inline with the banner at the top of the page - The heavens declare the glory of God. What science can do is provde information that affirms the validity of our Faith.

For instance: Archeoligical evidence that supports the validity of the Bible is abundant. The complexities of RNA and DNA serves to lend credence to an intelligent creator and against evolution through speciaton - we don't see DNA built up gradually over time like an evolutionist would predict. Newly discovered irreducable complexities also point to ID.

And as much as the scientific community claims to keep an open mind, it really doesn't. One reason for this is what Kurieuo pointed to: that a lot of people would rather believe anything than turn to accept the existance of an intelligent creator. Where is the science community's answer for the fossil record not supporting evolution through gradual mutation? Where is the community's answer to proven irriducable complexities?

Do some research on cold fusion if you want to learn just how close-minded the science community can be.

[Anonymous]

you seem to have a very strong preconception that you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

I don't have a preconception that everyone else is wrong...I just feel the points being raised definitely aren't strong enough to do the things that seem to be hoped for, such as getting ID into classrooms, proving God from science, or proving evolution to be a hoax or something that cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

By the way, I have taken great offence in your choice to equate the 9/11 murderers to Christians. You are just another person who has no interest in having a rational discussion here, you came here to accuse us of being religious fanatics who like to murder people

August, is this the quote you are referring to?

I hear the same attitude coming from Christian extremists, and it all boils down to a mixing pot of particular attitudes that I thought were un-Christian: Hatred. Prejudice. Stereotype. Egocentrism. Ethnocentrism. Extreme patriotism (such as a willingness to do anything asked of you on the basis that it reflects pride in your country.) Bigotry

I was referring to Christian extremists. In that quote, it says "extremists." The definition of 'extreme' is, in The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997): "Very severe or radical." Also, "going to great lengths or beyond normal limits." I suppose that when I put the two words together, I assumed it wouldn't be equated to Christians in general, but to Christian extremists. For example, I consider myself pretty liberal, but I am just as disgusted by liberal extremists as I am by right-wing extremists or Christian extremists or Muslim extremists...my point was not to bash Christians, but to express my frustration with any kind of extremism. I was equating extremism--in its general sense--to the 9-11 attacks, not Christianity, and it was supposed to be in response to this quote from vvart:

What does being a religious fanatic have to do with blowing stuff up?

Fanaticism and extremism...those are the things I was bashing. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I'll try a little harder to be more specific. I honestly do not come here with the intentions of picking fights with the Christians--I sincerely like the Christian philosophy...my only wish would be that more Christians live up to those philosophies and try to gain a deeper understanding of them through the metaphoric (always relativistic), rather than the literal (usually absolute), interpretations.

To start with, you had better let the rest of the evolution scientists know that you have changed their theory for them. The ToE describes the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Your condescending quote above is absolutely true. I will let them know immediately. I guess I assumed that abiogenesis was an extension of the theory of evolution, considering most evolution books I've read and most of the 'introduction to evolution' classes begin with the experiments of Stanley Miller as a starting point for the origin of life and species, and then a microevolution of that basic life to a more complex scale as shown in the geologic records (planted by Satan according to vvart), followed by an extremely gradual change to macroscopic lifeforms (as seen in Satan's geologic record), which then led into the evolution of species (which can be seen in the geologic record and was speculated by Darwin based on his observances of absolute truths)--and that final step, which was guided by the same forces as the preceding steps (not Satan...that was a joke)--is the version of evolution I believe you are referring to.

This quote:

ID is backed by plenty of visible evidence, through the description of irreducibly complex systems and morphological novelty

is a tad confusing to me. Regardless of what you think, I do not ignore you...I just don't always understand, and sometimes (as in vvart's case of Satan as an explanation of geologic records) I simply ignore any "evidence" presented, if it sounds too farfetched. I have dismissed vvart's scientific credibility in a lot of cases because no science can be explained or should be attempted to be explained to someone who already attributes all the forces of nature to the simplistic forces of 'good' versus 'evil' in some supernatural battle to gain our attention. In cases like that, I simply give up because no matter what you say to someone like that, the answer will always be a meaningless 'explanation' as "because God said so" or "because Satan did it." Those were the answers I always got to scientific questions in Catholic school, and they (the so-called answers) never satisfied my inquisitive nature...it's the same as saying "believe it because it is. There's no further need to understand." I want to understand and I want to learn. I don't want crackpot answers that merely satisfy those who never really wanted answers to scientific questions. They may work as short-term answers to children in order to stop them from getting too in-depth with questions (thereby making other children too confused), but I am no longer a child and have come back to those initial questions I felt were never satisfied with the Catholic version of life and living things. Hopefully, this clarifies things a little.

But since you don't believe in truth, I don't think that you are convinceable

Perhaps I should clarify this as well, for you and Kurieuo. I don't believe in absolute truth. I do believe in truth. Ah, that doesn't really clarify things, either. Hmm...this is tougher than I thought. Okay, here it goes...take the color blue, for example. Absolute truth would assume only one blue. Since I don't believe in absolute truth, I do not believe there is only one blue, but many blues. There are dark blues, light blues, navy blues, sky blues, green-blues, etc. Just as I don't believe in absolute truth to philosophy...there is a giant spectrum being ignored whenever someone believes any philosophy as an absolute truth. Instead of 'blue,' think of 'thou shall not kill.' As I already stated, there are a variety of circumstances that might warrant a reason to kill. Heck, God Himself listed some sins in Leviticus that warrant a penalty of death. Or how about the word 'good?' I already expanded upon this as well. There is a spectrum of behaviors that might warrant 'good' behavior. Believing in absolutes means there is an absolute 'good' deed. I refuse to believe that because a good deed to one person (liberating Iraqis, for example) is seen by others as a bad deed (such as the unintentional killing of countless civilians in the process.) If 'good' were an absolute, shouldn't everyone be happy by the good deeds? To me, it all seems relative to the observer.

you are always making absolute truth claims (including the claim "I do not believe there is a such thing as absolute truth"). Surely this is the height of irrational thought?

See what I mean? I do not believe there to be a thing as absolute truth, yet Kurieuo might see me as one who does believe in absolute truth. It's relative to the observer. K's observance of me would show someone who believes in absolutes, whereas I thought it made sense the way I described my beliefs. Perhaps you are right, K...perhaps it is irrational, if not just a tad confusing. I suppose the words "I believe..." give away statements of mine as being relativistic. Simply because I believe something to be true does not mean I believe it to be true to all people--this is strictly speaking in a philosophic sense, though. It's like a weather pattern. I believe today to be a generally cool day, whereas someone from Antarctica might see it as a hot day and someone from an equatorial region might see it as a cold day...it's relative to the observer, not an absolute truth to all people. Does that make any sense, or am I just confusing myself all the more? Then again, there are scientific truths to which I believe do apply to all people, such as "today, at this particular location, the temperature topped out at 65 degrees fahrenheit (sorry about my American standards, K! )" No matter who came to this particular location, they would observe the same thing. This I see as factual information...philosophies are never factual because they apply differently to all people. That's another reason why I don't think Christianity and science should be intertwined. By saying "I believe..." or "I think...", you are automatically introducing a personal philosophy or a personal viewpoint, which may be shaped by facts, but are not generally facts in and of themselves. You can almost always test the "I think" ideas, though. I think there is a possibility of other planets with life. I can back it up with facts, such as observances from the Hubble telescope showing clouds of elements ejected from supernovas, which often contain the elements of life. That is a supporting fact--an absolute. The "I think" part is still questionable, up until life is found on some other planet or until that life comes to our planet, such as hitching a ride on a meteor that traveled through the interstellar cloud of gas.

Once again, strictly philosophically speaking, I do not believe there to be a such thing as absolute truth. Scientifically speaking, I believe there are both absolutes and relativistic viewpoints, but to be considered a scientific thought, there must be absolute facts to back up the relativistic viewpoints and there must be a logical connection between the relative versus the absolute...the Bible is always a relativistic tool when used for argument, since not very much of it can be proved or disproved. That's why not many scientists take Bible debates too seriously--they understand the arguments to be relativistic viewpoints trying to slaughter absolutes. Relativistic viewpoints must take the back seat if you are to be taken seriously, and you are expected (in the scientific community) to be able to recognize your absolute viewpoints versus your relativistic viewpoints.

I have come in to this forum to develop my relativistic viewpoints. I definitely am not coming here to learn absolute truths...that's what I get from schooling. However, I know my weaker points to be my relativistic viewpoints, and I know I can benefit from Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Native Americans, Hindus, or any other religion or culture in an effort to develop those views. I just wish all of those views could get along without claiming they are the absolute truth so everyone could see the benefit of expanding their relativistic viewpoints...it would DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, TRUTHFULLY help the different world cultures get along and--interestingly--would probably even get people to love each other! Just as Christ asked us to do!

[Anonymous]

Fanaticism and extremism...those are the things I was bashing. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I'll try a little harder to be more specific. I honestly do not come here with the intentions of picking fights with the Christians--I sincerely like the Christian philosophy...my only wish would be that more Christians live up to those philosophies and try to gain a deeper understanding of them through the metaphoric (always relativistic), rather than the literal (usually absolute), interpretations.

I find this to be rather insulting on top of the insult that i take later on in your post. As Christians we don't believe Christianity being a philosophy but rather that its reality. Christ is the Word of God and God himself therefore he is the absolute Truth.

You began bashing me even though you didn't understand my previous posts at all and since you aren't a Christian I expected you not too. You claim that you want to understand, yet instead of doing just that you went and attacked me with your preconceived notions. On top of that nowhere did i mention that geological records are a result of Satan, you don't seem to understand that scientific observations in the world are made to fit evolution and not the other way around.

Also from your current viewpoint you will never fully understand Christianity and all you have been doing so far is bashing anything that goes against your beliefs.

Jesus told his disciples to go to different towns and preach the Good News and that if a town refused to listen, the disciples should without anger shake the dirt from their feet showing God's anger toward the town.

I show greater love for my fellow human being when I tell them that they are wrong in believing those false philosophies and in doing so i allow them a chance to be saved.

[Anonymous]

Vvart...I suppose I should give up in offering apologies. I wasn't trying to disrespect your religion or your views, but was instead poking fun. Apparently, you didn't like the jokes and--rather than apologize for an unintentional insult, I apologize for something I thought was funny that you apparently did not. I honestly am not here to insult...please believe that. I do, however, have a sense of humor that some people do take offense to. If it makes you feel better, feel free to bash me for being an agnostic! Do you want some help? I'll help you. This one's pretty funny, if you haven't heard it yet...ahem...

What do you get if you cross an agnostic with an insomniac with a dyslexic?

(Sorry to anyone who may be an agnostic...no offense intended. Sorry to anyone who suffers with insomnia--trust me, I know it's not a very fun affliction as I suffer from it. Dyslexics, I'm sorry to you as well. Some folks call me "Bob," so you would never have trouble reading my name, if it makes you feel better.)

Answer: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog.

[Anonymous]

No need for an apology as I've already forgiven, although I'm aware you were joking for the most part. However what I said is in fact a true statement that i stand by and implying that i have the mind of a child won't make me laugh.

[Kurieuo]

Scoobie,

Perhaps I should clarify this as well, for you and Kurieuo. I don't believe in absolute truth. I do believe in truth. Ah, that doesn't really clarify things, either. Hmm...this is tougher than I thought. Okay, here it goes...take the color blue, for example. Absolute truth would assume only one blue. Since I don't believe in absolute truth, I do not believe there is only one blue, but many blues. There are dark blues, light blues, navy blues, sky blues, green-blues, etc.

But don't you see? Each blue is has an absolute colour of blue, otherwise it wouldn't be called blue. Degrees of blue doesn't imply relativism, but rather objectivity that the colour blue really exists, and in many shades. Now you might choose not to see things in black and white absolutes, but this choice of yours is either objectively true, or objectively false. For example, my belief that you do or don't choose to see things in black and white, doesn't change whether you do see things in black and white, or you don't. This is called objective truth, where something is true regardless of what anyone believes.

Instead of 'blue,' think of 'thou shall not kill.' As I already stated, there are a variety of circumstances that might warrant a reason to kill. Heck, God Himself listed some sins in Leviticus that warrant a penalty of death. Or how about the word 'good?' I already expanded upon this as well.

However, the commandment really is one should not "murder," yet let me expand further on something else.

Are there any things you think are true regardless of whether anyone believes them or not? For example, is it always wrong to freely rape a young child, or are there a variety of circumstances that might warrant a reason to do so?

See what I mean? I do not believe there to be a thing as absolute truth, yet Kurieuo might see me as one who does believe in absolute truth. It's relative to the observer. K's observance of me would show someone who believes in absolutes, whereas I thought it made sense the way I described my beliefs. Perhaps you are right, K...perhaps it is irrational, if not just a tad confusing. I suppose the words "I believe..." give away statements of mine as being relativistic.

Actually you saying "I believe" means you have an absolute belief about something, doesn't it? It is either true or false that you believe.

It is impossible for someone to carry out any form of rational enquiry whatsoever if they truely believe everything is relative, because anything that is stated as truth, is also false. The person who gets hit by a car, does for some, and doesn't for others. Contradictions abound, and the world essentially becomes something within which there is no external reality, but the world becomes one of philosophical idealism. Statements loose all meaning.

Once again, strictly philosophically speaking, I do not believe there to be a such thing as absolute truth. Scientifically speaking, I believe there are both absolutes and relativistic viewpoints, but to be considered a scientific thought, there must be absolute facts to back up the relativistic viewpoints and there must be a logical connection between the relative versus the absolute...

Can't you see the mess you've gotten yourself into?

Kurieuo.