To add: I don't agree with you that the subjective axioms need be considered "imagined" or otherwise unimportant. Obviously agreed upon principles are generally one ingredient in creating societies. Between individuals or groups they can be agreed upon. Once principles are agreed upon derivation (or the proof/disproof) of propositions is both a form of research and can be part of empirical research into the way people live up to, form or break their own ethical beliefs. In short, any empirical research into ethics would require derivation and analysis. So, yes, there is a relation.
The people who are involved in the "agreeing" of course! Your second question is more difficult. One could work with a two-valued logic system (traditional), or attempt a three-valued system. I'm two years removed from doing much work with three-valued systems and I never decided if I thought a two or three valued non-traditional logic is more accurate, helpful or efficient. I'd have to spend more time on that before I could make a confident decision. Edit: I do tend to lean towards two-valued classical logic because I believe it is capable of expressing all possibilities and there is no need to add complexity if it won't add expressive ability. That said, three (or other mutli) valued logic has the benefit of ease and intuitiveness. My understanding of three-valued logic (specifically for expressing ethical propositions) is no where near my understanding of classical logic, though, and so I'm bias.
Two value classic logic can't handle self reference or iteration. Fun with two kinds... There are just two kinds of things. Those which can be divided into two kinds of thing, and those which can't. There are 10 kinds of people. Those which know binary and those which don't.
Two valued logic can "handle" self-reference. That it can do so without leading to contradiction or incompleteness is precisely what differentiates it from mathematics. It has it's own weaknesses which are exploited by other modal logics, however. But I'm not sure how you're suggesting these weaknesses impair it as a tool for ethical derivation. Could you give more?
I enjoy how you intersperse your posts about tolerance with personal attacks against my beliefs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
DH, I'm still waiting for you to say Japanese Shinto polytheism is equally as respected and as valad as Islam. Well? Is it? Here I can say it: Islam, Shinto, Scientology, Athiesm they are all equally as valad as one another.
Valid for whom? Its valid for the Japanese just as atheism is valid for atheists. Its invalid for Muslims. Wala antum abeduna ma abud. Lakum deenakum waliya deen [109:5-6]
If you believe Negos are below Whites, don't you think a person has the right to call you on it - I mean for Xist sake, you're a bigot and just don't know it.
Whites with Whites and Black with Blacks ... is that the level we're at now? Reminds me of that WASP website, you know, "we're just about pride in being white, you all go you'all way and we're go ours" You should re-read that site again. I think you could learn a thing about where intollerance leads. Tis sad indeed it tis, M
Not at all. I have the same opinions when it comes to economic principles or theories on the causes of obesity. Your opinions may hold validity for you, but if I do not agree with them they are invalid for me. I have no problem with people holding what I see as opinions which make no sense to me. I may not want to screw another girl but if there are girls out there who want to screw each other their opinion is valid for them, even if it were completely invalid to me. You have major issues with differentiating between rejecting invalid opinions and persecuting people for them. I sincerely hope you are more discerning when it comes to practicing your opinions.
I doubt the word "valid" has any meaning left, after that. We need another word. Meanwhile: there is no reality? No one's opinion is simply wrong - about, say, economic principles, the causes of obesity (my co-worker is convinced that eating fruit is a major cause of obesity in the US), or whether lesbian coupling is natural for at least some human beings and necessary for sane human society?
So you think that it is possible that other belief systems may be as valid, or gee even more so, than your own? Is that a possibility SAM? Is it possible that White skinned people could be equal with Black skinned people? Or is it just too damned difficult to talk about this and we need to define what is exactly meant by the word "equal"? Look I've spent many an occasion talking sense to racists. It usually doesn't hold long and they go back to being racist. Or they just can't seem to come to terms wit the fact that black people are indeed their equal. I know they can see the logic in it, that they can see their flaw, which is why they, just like you, circle and circle - in the end they just remain racist. I've decided that it's not really their fault. They're neural pathways probably can't be modified much at this stage in the game. I know, it's weird even to me, but that does seem to be the conclusion. I know you don't "get it" so I'll say this one more time. You may be right SAM. I may be wrong. This is possible. I might burn in Hell for fully denying the existence of your God. Sure this is possible. Do I think it's the case? No. But I will admit that in the realm of possibility it could be the case. Get it SAM? A little? I wonder, seriously, after all these years, if your neural connections are plastic enough to accept that it is possible your belief system is completely made-up intolerant bullshit that is seriously harmful to multicultural societies? I think you do. Which is why you have blossomed into a pretty decent apologist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Slowly marching Muslims off into Hell with your blasphemous liberalism/westernism :mufc:
It's should be noted that when considering theories of obesity one must first start from the point that said theory may indeed be true. Then, after following the scientific method come to a conclusion. It does not good if you can not or will not start from the point that YES it is possible that this theory may indeed be true. Is it possible that Shinto polytheism is true SAM? I mean, does that possibility even exist for you? Lets put it this way. If a child where to ask you this question: SAMMY is it possible that there are many Gods ;like my friend Lindy thinks ... and not just one God? Well SAMMY? Is it? What do you say?
"Buddhism is also a failure as a religion. The only surviving Buddhist societies are the ones that don't follow Buddhism. " India is primarily hindu. Buddhism is primarily chinese/tibetan, and tibet is on the border of china anyway. Where are your citations to support your claim? Buddhism emphasises PRACTICES over BELIEFS anyway. It's more a way of life than an actual religion. And buddhism doesn't have a creationist theory. Therefore not being defined as a religion...You're statement is invalid. Religion: 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs'
Existentialism and buddhism both are profound and are not comparable. It does not fail as buddhism is of the sort that inspires religious questions simialr to the atheists and christianity, opens all ideas as possible depending on perspective and allows any form of comfort possible. This thread is trash you guys are dumb.
For me? No. Just like atheism the ideology makes no sense to me. But homosexuality makes as little sense to me. Does it mean that I think there is anything wrong with being a homosexual? Nope. Let people have the option of choosing what they want. I don't see myself turning homosexual to make them feel better about their orientation.
