They're contradictory and can't complement each other...ducy?

What you appear to mean is that you're a contextualist: you think that there are 'facts of the matter' whether x is moral or immoral, but it may depend on the circumstances.

No, she's a bigwordsIdontknowthemeaningtobutuseanywaytoasserts uperiorityofmyirrationalviewsist.

its irrelevant. The philosophy is the same.

No. I'm not a contexualist I just have my own understanding of how "absolutism" and "moral relativism" intersect but I won't go into it here because it might be disruptive.

...or contradictory, meaningless, or irrational?

i don't believe in moral relativism since i don't believe in morality. i accept morality (or ethical behavior unless there is some sort of difference between the two) as a part of proper behavior in a lawful society but i fail to see any historical evidence that morality has ever existed.

might may not make right, but it makes it doable and puts you in a position where right/wrong doesn't matter.

realy? the only reason you dont ever kill, steal rape etc is because you're scared of retribution?

even if its true of you which is highly unlikely, you're exceptionally blind if you think its true of everyone.

morality derived from religion would say that yes; retribution is the reason why people don't do such things.

i personally don't kill/steal/rape not because of the fear of retribution by the government/god or any other power but because of a rigorous personal code (basically do unto others...) and i believe in being a good member of society. i also treat other people with respect and i open the doors for people when entering/exit a building.

the history of the world though is not of people acting "morally" but "immorally". it is not of just government/rulers but of unjust government/rulers. i am not talking about poor people starving in the streets but of the pillaging of populations/ethnic and religious wars/people stealing and raping and murdering and it extends from before the roman decimation of gaul to the current wars in africa.

however, if somebody broke into my home i would likely (as in i am prepared to but who knows, i could freeze in the moment) shoot them.

we dont do religon here

that is morality.

Clearly not.

so what?

Sounds like someone believes in morality and doesn't understand the terms which he's using.

It helps to cut the conceptual fat.

Philosophy is useful for articulating and analyzing intuitions and our pre-theoretic positions.

Which is basically just another way of saying "philosophy can't make you right, but it can stop you being wrong so damn much."

A prof has a great line that there are very few (if any) ways to be right (that is, we may not think that there's one RIGHT answer) but there are LOTS of ways to be wrong.

Philosophy is usually about ruling out as many of the 'wrong' as possible so that we at least begin to home in on 'right' answers.

I make it very clear to students when writing their papers that I don't particularly care WHAT they argue...just that they have good arguments and that they consider (and respond to) at least one objection to their position. There are no 'right' ways to do this (students can surprise you with their creativity by coming up with arguments you've never considered) but there are just SO many ways to go wrong. The A/A+ papers aren't ones that I think are 'right' (what the hell is the 'right' answer?!) but they're ones that are insightful, have good clarity and strength of argument, and consider objections to their positions (they don't ignore obvious objections).

This tends to shock them...that I'm not looking for the 'right' answer and that, strictly speaking, I don't care what they argue (just that they do it well).

No I just have my own ideas in their developmental stage but its impossible to discuss some new ideas in an internet forum because for the most part the enviroment seems to foster forum posters' to conform to and to operate from generally recognizable forms of paradigmatic thinking.

The universal truth is that everyone will die. Unfortunately not everyone can handle the truth and that is where the problems begin.

Ummm, I disagree but if you can't do it here, I doubt that you can do it anywhere of repute. It's not about conforming to falling into an old paradigm: it's about making sense. Even the most radical post-modernist has to make sense and has to justify their claims.

If you abandon things like tying down your terms and using basic logic...then you go have fun in the corner by yourself because we can't have a dialogue if you're not willing to lay down some basic ground rules for understanding.

That's all true.

But I've done almost exclusively The God Debate for 3 and a half years and just this week I realized that paradigmatic thinking leads to incivility in debate because your own mind is constantly projecting stereotypes of the other side. For instance most atheists think theists see them as immoral God haters but that's because they think paradignmatically. I think there is a psychological characteristic of the human mind that makes us stereotype the opposing side. Because other reasons besides hating God could make you an atheist. For example, you could have gotten lazy or bored and fell asleep in church. Then later when you trade barbs with a theist they conclude you are a natural hater because you don't believe in God and say things that are socially unacceptable if you have a natural respect for all human beings. Most atheist posters on here are extreme liberals. Liberals usually like other people excessively. At least that's my personal assessment. However, if you present your position with extremely sarcastic rhetoric you make your side look like a bunch of uncaring deuchebags.

That's known as the false polarization effect.

I'll have to look that up but if spirits were using it then it wouldn't really be false would it?

Of course it it testable. Who told you it wasn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic

Who wants to know?

SERIOUSLY? Please tell me this is a level.

If it's not, you're horribly begging the question and committing at least 2 other fallacies, I'm sure.

(Hint: If evolution is true, this behaviour could have evolved and yet not be reproductively advantageous.)

Think about this.

How does evolution parallel the bible account on so many points?

Its too huge a coincidence. When does a series of coincidences cease to be coincidence?

The bible speaks about both sides being able to send people delusions.

I suggest you read the bible again. In particular the New Testament.

Maybe you're confusing cause for effect?

I don't think so.

You know why. A lot of people reject the bible off of alternate explanations like evolution.

They replace the bible with evolution.

But they can be separate explanations that are both accurate and we just haven't figured out how they link in all respects.

Also in brain research right now they are doing a lot of mapping of the brain. This is another long explanation.

People because they have long explanations are crediting these explanations with more authority than they might have.

What is both good and bad about science is that it changes all the time. That means we progress but at the same time that changes the explanation.

The bible never reverses itself. We do reinterpret it in the light of new events then we get ridiculed for doing that. But what if God meant for our textual and scientific knowledge to grow together.

Our paradigmatic thinking goes crazy any time we try to move into free thinking mode about the bible. But the bible is a book about acquiring a free spirit. Religious people just like non-believers are troubled by paradigmatic thinking. There really is a pull of opposites on everybody. Its just a matter of which way you lean. You can always readjust the direction of your lean through your internally controlled compass (your heart/mind connection). Humans are 3 part: body, soul and spirit. If we manage to win control of our own soul then we can go on to the spiritual formation stage.