(May 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

---

If you don't have time for me than I don't have time for you pal. This whole shtick you've got going of answering a question with a question is pseudo intellectual and masturbatory in it's very nature. You manage to interject without ever making a point. It's arrogant sophistry and I'll have nothing more to do with you. I THOUGHT I'd attempt a legitimate conversation with a Christian. Obviously, you have proven to me once again that you people are utterly useless.

*IGNORING User*

---

You seem to "ignore" a lot Cinjin

Always without reason given.

(May 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: If you don't have time for me than I don't have time for you pal. This whole shtick you've got going of answering a question with a question is pseudo intellectual and masturbatory in it's very nature. You manage to interject without ever making a point. It's arrogant sophistry and I'll have nothing more to do with you. I THOUGHT I'd attempt a legitimate conversation with a Christian. Obviously, you have proven to me once again that you people are utterly useless.

*IGNORING User*

You seem to "ignore" a lot Cinjin

Just you and this guy ... but for different reasons. And it's none of your concern, but I did give reason. Open your eyes.

(May 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm)Timothy Wrote: Typically moral nihilism involves the denial of any truth claims with respect to moral values and obligations, be they "objective" or "subjective". In any case, my point applies to ethical subjectivism and moral relativism equally - if the notion of progress is simply dependent on personal preference, then what sense does it make to ask questions about whether, for example, progress has been made in the case of gay marriage? It can no longer be a question about which there can be substantive debate (since there is no standard by which such a debate could be measured against), but only the sharing of various personal preferences. It becomes a question akin to "What is your favourite genre of music?" or "Which is better: coffee or tea?"

I started a thread on nihilism a few days ago, i'm not an expert on what the ins and outs of it are. Maybe my understanding is incorrect. Maybe Adrian should be the one trying to discuss this

@ Cinjin: Meaningless ad homs yeah - I saw those. Seems like you don't like to explain yourself much. Or justify your assertions. We must work on those guidelines for atheists methinks

(May 28, 2011 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Cinjin: Meaningless ad homs yeah - I saw those. Seems like you don't like to explain yourself much. Or justify your assertions. We must work on those guidelines for atheists methinks

No, I don't think you think at all. Like Statler, you see what you want to see. My posts stand for all to scrutinize, and I always come out justified in the end.


You on the other hand, always solidify your reputation of resident crazy person.

(May 28, 2011 at 6:52 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: I started a thread on nihilism a few days ago, i'm not an expert on what the ins and outs of it are. Maybe my understanding is incorrect. Maybe Adrian should be the one trying to discuss this

As with most of these kind of concepts there are a range of possible meanings attached to the labels - there is (ironically :p) no unique "objective" definition.

(May 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: My posts stand for all to scrutinize, and I always come out justified in the end.

C'mon now CC. You respond to an off topic comment and ignore requests directly aimed at you. We can scrutinize your tom foolery plenty. Justification to the home crowd is hardly valid now.

(May 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: My posts stand for all to scrutinize, and I always come out justified in the end.

C'mon now CC. You respond to an off topic comment and ignore requests directly aimed at you. We can scrutinize your tom foolery plenty. Justification to the home crowd is hardly valid now.

back that up. Post #s please.

(May 28, 2011 at 10:20 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: My posts stand for all to scrutinize, and I always come out justified in the end.

C'mon now CC. You respond to an off topic comment and ignore requests directly aimed at you. We can scrutinize your tom foolery plenty. Justification to the home crowd is hardly valid now.

back that up. Post #s please.

"How do you make that work? I presume you have some idea or you'd believe something else?" - from here

I thought about saying something upon the subject of marriage too.
First off, I totally disagree with religious marriage. This doesn't mean that I would try to force this view upon somebody, it's just that I consider it stupid: Two people are not 'married' when the priest/pastor says whatever he says, but when the two people sign in the documents, and you don't need a priest/pastor for a celebration. Also, whom the government decides to marry is not my problem. Even if it's about marriage with animals (e.g. dog, goat, etc. which seem to be legalized in some countries): if the majority wants it, then I don't care if the government implements it. The same with polygamy and polyandry.

As about gay people and religion, I see as totally stupid for gay people to want a religious marriage, and more absurd for the government to force churches to marry them. I also think it's absurd to have gay priests and gay pastors: you know, why the hell would a gay man want to become a priest/pastor/imam/rabbi, if his own doctrine/faith/whatever is totally against it? (well, the churches should do what they want, my opinion, but I believe the government should not force this thing on them)