At no point did I call for making it illegal for people to say certain things. You seem to think my position is to censor speech, and I am at a loss for why you believe that. This seems to be the main sticking point, but I am at a loss why. You could have attacked this on purely practical grounds instead of resorting to censorship.

Were you born without a sense of irony?

Bacteria, for example, were discovered in 1676. No one figured out what they did until 1905 when Robert Koch linked them to disease. You simply don't have the knowledge base to have this discussion.

My lies? What the heck? I am pointing out that people had a reason to believe that diseases were transmitted by living things that cannot be seen. Which is in fact the basis for quarentinees… which date back thousands of years.

Your objection is nonsensical- how is the date that bacteria was discovered relevant to the fact the existance of bacteria can be logically deduced? Do you think that there wasn't enough evidence to deduce the existance of bacteria before 1905?

Oh wait- it isn't out of character for you. You have misrepresented my position, showed extreme ignorance of the basics of ethics, commited repeated logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, strawman, false dilemnia, ad hominum, appeal to emotion etc).

<blockquote.You might want to seek residence in China

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/…

The difference between us is that you believe I have no right to mine.

Once again, misrepresenting my position. People don't have a right to a job, but saying that doesn't mean you desire everyone be unemployed.In fact, not having a right doesn't mean something is banned- it just means you have to provide a reason for you to be allowed to have it.

You might one day be able to say what you are talking about accurately. Maybe.

This is rich coming from someone who has apparently never heard of utilitarianism.

In the meantime, keep using that dictionary.

You object to me using a dictionary to point out your position is a nonsensical appeal to emotion?

<blockquote.But don't come back around here.

Translation- I cannot defend my position so I will show outrage and say that my opponent is an idiot.

Stanfords Other Women

Anyways Its better in my opinion to have values that you may see broken then to have none at all…right?

You don't like my belief system. That's fine, I'm not asking you to. The difference between us is that you believe I have no right to mine. You might want to seek residence in China or North Korea, I hear their official position agrees with yours.

But don't come back around here. I don't need your condescenion coupled with your incredible ignorance. Spew your ignorance and hatred on someone else, somewhere else. In the meantime, keep using that dictionary. You might one day be able to say what you are talking about accurately. Maybe.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Let's talk about something that can be proven – like that diseases can be transmitted by bacteria. At one point, science lacked the ability to see bacteria. You're claim is that, until science could see bacteria, they did not exist. That's simply foolish. Obviously, bacteria existed the whole time, we merely lacked the ability to see them. Now, substitute “God” for “bacteria.” You're talking ahead of your data.

Nice strawman. We had a phenomena that needed an explanation AND we had evidence that showed that there where tiny things that we couldn't see causing it. Not all evidence is required to be visual- for example, the fact that it can be spread from person to person implies that it is caused by living things. The fact that it can be seen in pus and get into wounds shows that it is too small to be seen individually with the naked eye. The fact that it causes people to cough and sneeze implies that some of the stuff coming out of their noses and throats is the disease causing agent.

As an aside, not all diseases are caused by bacteria. There are ones caused by your body going mad, trauma, lack of nutrition, fungi, parasites and viruses.

In this case there is actual evidence that calls for an explanation, with bacteria being the best. What would not be warrented would be any claims about what they looked like- although the urge to imagine them as little predatory animals is strong, a quick look at insects reveals that there is a major change in animals based on size and that ones that cannot be seen might look completely alien (which is the case).

By contrast the idea of God has no such evidence to back it up.

This is complete nonsense. People believe in all sorts of things that aren't perfectly rational. It doesn't make them “immune” to rational discourse at all.

While my statement was an absolute, there IS a definate trend between supersticius thinking and resistance to rational thought. How do you deal with someone who believes homeopathy works for instance?

Legally, that is a very dangerous position. Morally, it is contemptible. First, you have to define what “harm” is. Teaching your kid it is okay to eat sweets right before bed could be construed to be harmful. You obviously haven't thought the least bit about the results of the actions you affirm.

… You haven't shown what is wrong with that position. The simplest method to deal with it is to tax sugar, not to ban that behavior.

Believe it or not, it is important for people to have good eating habits and failing to do that is bad. You seem to have this hard on for individual freedom to the point of forgeting that freedoms can be abused.

It is NOT “the fundamental basis for all political beliefs.” I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense.

Given we live in a democracy, I'd say yes. Otherwise, how do they get put into practice- magic?

Furthermore, fundamental Christians do have a backing for their beliefs, it's just one that you don't like. Just like them, you want to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves.

You will, of course, show me the evidence that fundamentalists use to decide that their beliefs are right, without commiting any logical fallacies.

No, you haven't. Not in the least.

… Wow. I'll just go for the gold. You are familiar with the 13th amendment?

There are numerous studies that do this. The most salient facts concerning the death penalty are the race of the defendant and the race of the victim.

? Most black crimes have black victims.

Well, that's a nice sentiment. Some are. Your hatred blinds you to all sorts of things.

These are people who believe the South should have won the civil war. While not all of them are stupid, the level of stupidity exceeds rural areas in the United States by an enormous margain. There is a reason cosmopolitan is synonymous with cities.

I said no one changed their mind simply because someone told them it was wrong or that they were bad people.

Well, b obviously wouldn't work. If you say someone is bad but don't say why, you accomplish nothing. As for claiming no one ever changed their mind because they are told they were wrong, you seem to be implying that no one ever changed their mind from a debate. It is harder because people become attached to their positions, but it still occurs.

It wasn't public pressure that changed Denny's policy, it was a court case.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_…

“On April 1, 1993, the very same day that Denny's settled a federal suit for discriminating against African American customers in California, six black Secret Service agents at a Denny's restaurant in Annapolis, Maryland, waited nearly an hour for breakfast.”

The suit did not change their policy. They were forced to change it by publicity as they had already been sued in the past for their behavior. It just happens to be that these people got national attention because they were the Secret Service.

Did you not notice that the Supreme Court ruled on a discrimination case just this week? Have you not considered the ramifications of it? You are simply willfully ignorant.

There is a difference between “people are racist today” and “people are as rascist as they were 50 years ago- or as they have always been”. You seem to think that people never change, which makes me curious how you believe that people changed in human history.

Saying “alcoholics are bad people so don't be an alcoholic” doesn't sound very effective to me, either.

No, being an alcoholic when people depend on you is bad to do. There is nothing inherently bad about killing your liver (except toward yourself). But saying that someone is a bad person for neglecting people who depend on them because of addicition is reasonable.

So now you want to pretend like you didn't. So, which was the lie? The first time you spoke or the second? Which should I believe and why should I believe, either? By your own reckoning, you've lied to me and are, therefore, a bad person. I should make an example of you so that other people learn.

“but it is fine to consider them a bad person for being an alcoholic. This isn't hard. Judging people bacause of immoral actions is okay. “

First time I posted. I was explicatly condeming them for their for their actions.

In short you are misrepresenting my posts. Again.

Additionally, you have failed to consider a basic human action. It is called learning. I might change my position because… I have changed my position. Amazing isn't it that people can change?

So, which promises are okay to break?

Promises that require immoral acts to keep.

You accused me of moral relativism. This is the very example of it.

Moral relativism is a refusal to take a stand on the question of what is right. I am taking a stand that not all bad things are equally bad. This is hardly surprising, novel or objectionable, given that it has been on of the cornerstone of human legal tradition for several milenia.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what you believe and are just trying to throw a veneer of civilization over your hatred so that you can sleep better at night.

You got me. I am in fact Batman.

Oh, wait this is because you repeatedly do not understand what I am saying. Would you prefer I write it out in nice block format?

More relativism.

…
You do not know what moral relativism is. There are ethical systems that don't use rights. In fact, they are more logically consistent.

“Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. “

The idea that a person who believes that we should try to convince other people tthat their ideas are wrong, that their actions are bad and that their beliefs systems are flawed is the complete and total opposite of moral relativism.

Cool. Then I'll be on your doorstep tomorrow and relieve you of your car keys so that you cannot hurt anyone.

There is a difference between random accidents that occur during normal life and problems caused by negligance, neglect and ill intent.

Ask Vladamir Lenin.

Or John Brown. Or every single social progressive in history.

Also, calling me a commie isn't a big threat. Aside from family backround there is the whole preventing the Nazis from slaughtering the Slavs. Sure, they were batshit insane, but when it comes to preventing 180 million people from dying you get some slack.

And it is making projections that science doesn't have the capacity to test.

That is a limit of equipment. If science never will have the capacity to test it, than it is useless. Of course, the second is hard to test, but a lack of distinguishing features between it and competing theories would be the big one.

By your reasoning, this should mean that it is worthless and should be driven out of people's heads.

If it really is entirely useless, than they should be working on actual useful science. I'd point out I don't believe it is useless… but only because they have mad it testable. Otherwise I'd be in favor of not paying to fund it.

I agree that you have the right to declare it is nonsense. You have no right to say they have no right to hold it. Not on moral grounds, and definitely not on legal grounds.

Name the moral grounds for people to have the right to hold beliefs that have no backing, no possibility of backing and that contradict reality.

I think your assumption is flawed. You don't seem to be making rational or competent statements. No one ever has to prove to you that they have a right to believe something. That goes against every precept of freedom. It is nothing less than an argument for mental slavery.

Requiring evidence for claims is mental slavery? And you accuse me of making irrational and incompetant statements…

To say someone is deluded or lives in a fantasy is questioning their mental acuity.

“acuity, acumen, acuteness, cleverness, contrivance, ingenuity, keenness, sharpness, shrewdness, perspicacity ((Dep)formel), sagacity (literary)”

Fine, I am questioning there possession of these virtues. I thought it meant something else, but the dictionary showed otherwise.

It is saying they are insane, which means they are not fit to make decisions for themselves.

We have seatbelt laws because we don't trust people to make decisions for themselves. The question is where do we draw the line.

Why not? Evidence works fine for this- if there is no reason to believe God exists that we do not reject the null hypothesis.

added to:

When there is no evidence for a given proposition and, if the proposition was true there would be evidence, than the proposition is false. If there would be no evidence if the proposition was true, than the belief is non-falsifiable and should be rejected.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Let's talk about something that can be proven – like that diseases can be transmitted by bacteria. At one point, science lacked the ability to see bacteria. You're claim is that, until science could see bacteria, they did not exist. That's simply foolish. Obviously, bacteria existed the whole time, we merely lacked the ability to see them. Now, substitute “God” for “bacteria.” You're talking ahead of your data.

Believing that evidence is not required to support your beliefs is because it makes you immune to rational discourse.

This is complete nonsense. People believe in all sorts of things that aren't perfectly rational. It doesn't make them “immune” to rational discourse at all.

What are you talking about? The limit is obvious. When you are causing harm to your children and you can't justify it without saying “I believe” than obviously it should be stopped.

Legally, that is a very dangerous position. Morally, it is contemptible. First, you have to define what “harm” is. Teaching your kid it is okay to eat sweets right before bed could be construed to be harmful. You obviously haven't thought the least bit about the results of the actions you affirm.

Er… this is the fundamental basis for all political beliefs- that they have to be spread to be accomplished. As for the difference, they don't have any backing for their beliefs. If they cannot defend their beliefs, they are wrong.

It is NOT “the fundamental basis for all political beliefs.” I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Furthermore, fundamental Christians do have a backing for their beliefs, it's just one that you don't like. Just like them, you want to take away people's freedom to decide for themselves.

So? Your claim was it was just as bad. I have shown it is obvious not.

No, you haven't. Not in the least.

Minorities and poor people. Interestingly, minorities are often poor people. Have you done any attempt to avoid confounding.

There are numerous studies that do this. The most salient facts concerning the death penalty are the race of the defendant and the race of the victim.

People in the rural South are retarded.

Well, that's a nice sentiment. Some are. Your hatred blinds you to all sorts of things.

Except you made an absolute statement. You said no one changed their mind.

Wow, you really can't hold a complete thought in your head. I said no one changed their mind simply because someone told them it was wrong or that they were bad people.

Except there is a difference in severity. We had a person on a racist platform… but they were running for the senate, not president. We have people disciminated against… but they are allowed to attend the same universities. Legal racism is essentially eradicated with only it occuring on a case by case basis. Of course, how bad that is varies, but it is certainly better than it was in the past. After all, Dennies no longer refuses to seat black people after public pressure.

It wasn't public pressure that changed Denny's policy, it was a court case. Did you not notice that the Supreme Court ruled on a discrimination case just this week? Have you not considered the ramifications of it? You are simply willfully ignorant.

People are the sum of their decisions. If a person consistently makes bad decisions they are a bad person.

Saying “alcoholics are bad people so don't be an alcoholic” doesn't sound very effective to me, either.

That isn't what I am saying. It is all too easy to identify evil in other people and not yourself. Being an alcoholic makes you a bad person. It isn't that bad people do bad things. It is that people do bad things and that makes them a bad person.

Yeah, but you did say that. So now you want to pretend like you didn't. So, which was the lie? The first time you spoke or the second? Which should I believe and why should I believe, either? By your own reckoning, you've lied to me and are, therefore, a bad person. I should make an example of you so that other people learn.

Once again, severity. Marriage is alot bigger promise than showing up on time and there is a difference between promises broken because of outside actions and ones broken because you didn't feel like keeping it.

So, which promises are okay to break? You accused me of moral relativism. This is the very example of it. I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know what you believe and are just trying to throw a veneer of civilization over your hatred so that you can sleep better at night.

Legal rights are important…But you did say that. It's a direct cut-and-paste quote from you.

Rights and legal rights are not synonymous.

More relativism.

When they hurt people, there are legal consequences.

I'd prefer intervention before that happens.

Cool. Then I'll be on your doorstep tomorrow and relieve you of your car keys so that you cannot hurt anyone.

I called you an intolerable prick for saying that you aren't willing to let people make up their own minds.

So? What is wrong with that?

Ask Vladamir Lenin.

I'm pretty sure you come up with the predicitons first. Otherwise, what is the point?

That's really the question of extreme physics. However, the point for this conversation is that you can't use it to desribe reality. And it is making projections that science doesn't have the capacity to test. By your reasoning, this should mean that it is worthless and should be driven out of people's heads.

I don't have the right to use force. I do have every right to declare their position is nonsense and that they do not have any right to hold it.

I agree that you have the right to declare it is nonsense. You have no right to say they have no right to hold it. Not on moral grounds, and definitely not on legal grounds.

If they can come up with evidence I am wrong, sure. But unless they do I don't see them having the right to have choosen another way. I am assuming I have enough information to make a competant decision.

I think your assumption is flawed. You don't seem to be making rational or competent statements. No one ever has to prove to you that they have a right to believe something. That goes against every precept of freedom. It is nothing less than an argument for mental slavery.

No it isn't. It is willful self delusion or fantasy. Even the most competant person can imagine. The difference is the ability to sort between what is true and what isn't.

To say someone is deluded or lives in a fantasy is questioning their mental acuity. It is saying they are insane, which means they are not fit to make decisions for themselves.

After all, most believers would never accept the rationale given for other religions… but have a blindspot when it comes to their own. What would you say when a person is able to recognize bad arguments except when they are their own?

I don't know – what do you call yourself?

But the scientific method – and therefore science – cannot render a verdict on the existence of God.

Why not? Evidence works fine for this- if there is no reason to believe God exists that we do not reject the null hypothesis.

but one of the first things a scientist has to learn is not to speak beyond the limits of the data. Right now, we can only say that we cannot perceive the existence of any deity. That is not the same as saying that accepting reality demands that we declare there is no god.

When there is no evidence for a given proposition and, if the proposition was true there would be evidence, than the proposition is false. If there would be no evidence if the proposition was true, than the belief is non-falsifiable and should be rejected.

Very few beliefs are inherently harmful

Believing that evidence is not required to support your beliefs is because it makes you immune to rational discourse.

So, obviously, there is a limit (there is a limit to all liberties), but finding the exact point where the limit exists is not always a simple thing.

What are you talking about? The limit is obvious. When you are causing harm to your children and you can't justify it without saying “I believe” than obviously it should be stopped.

All right, but this is the exact same argument that fundamental Christians use to push their beliefs, too. The Great Commission commands them “Go into all the world and spread my word.” You can't have your right to say what you believe is right without giving them the same right.

Er… this is the fundamental basis for all political beliefs- that they have to be spread to be accomplished. As for the difference, they don't have any backing for their beliefs. If they cannot defend their beliefs, they are wrong.

I don't know when the last time a bomb raid was run.

1921.

But there are plenty of reports of racially motivated violence against blacks, or latinos, or asians

So? Your claim was it was just as bad. I have shown it is obvious not.

Have you ever looked at the racial breakdown for prisoners facing the death penalty in the US?

Minorities and poor people. Interestingly, minorities are often poor people. Have you done any attempt to avoid confounding.

Having spent some time discussing politics in various parts of the country, I'd say that the reason there isn't a better safety net is because a significant portion of whites are afraid the benefits would disproportionately fall to blacks.

People in the rural South are retarded.

Many more still are.

Except you made an absolute statement. You said no one changed their mind.

Again, just because it has changed form, doesn't mean that racism isn't alive and well.

Except there is a difference in severity. We had a person on a racist platform… but they were running for the senate, not president. We have people disciminated against… but they are allowed to attend the same universities. Legal racism is essentially eradicated with only it occuring on a case by case basis. Of course, how bad that is varies, but it is certainly better than it was in the past. After all, Dennies no longer refuses to seat black people after public pressure.

That is very different than what you are saying now. Good people make bad decisions.

People are the sum of their decisions. If a person consistently makes bad decisions they are a bad person.

Saying “alcoholics are bad people so don't be an alcoholic” doesn't sound very effective to me, either.

That isn't what I am saying. It is all too easy to identify evil in other people and not yourself. Being an alcoholic makes you a bad person. It isn't that bad people do bad things. It is that people do bad things and that makes them a bad person.

If you can help someone out and stop doing the bad things than all the better, but I am implying a case where individuals are not changing or trying to change.

Then we are all bad people, it's only a matter of quantity. No one goes through life without letting someone down or breaking a promise somewhere.

Once again, severity. Marriage is alot bigger promise than showing up on time and there is a difference between promises broken because of outside actions and ones broken because you didn't feel like keeping it.

I'm not sure they are a majority of the world population, though.

My point was they don't.

Legal rights are important…But you did say that. It's a direct cut-and-paste quote from you.

Rights and legal rights are not synonymous.

When they hurt people, there are legal consequences.

I'd prefer intervention before that happens.

I'd love for people to have more consideration for other drivers – any ideas on how we can make this happen?

Well, there are legal sanctions, better urban planning, social pressure against bad drivers, etc. It just require people to be willing to make effort to change it.

It's fine to say he's hypocritical about marital fidelity – I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily generalize to other areas.

Except that is one of his parties major planks. Major hypocricy is worth condemnation.

I called you an intolerable prick for saying that you aren't willing to let people make up their own minds.

So? What is wrong with that?

But it's going to be difficult to reconcile mathematics that only works in fourteen or more dimensions with a three dimensional reality.

I'm pretty sure you come up with the predicitons first. Otherwise, what is the point?

That's great. But each of us has the right to make up our own mind about what the best position is. You have no right to decide for the rest of humanity what is best. There's been quite enough of that throughout history.

I don't have the right to use force. I do have every right to declare their position is nonsense and that they do not have any right to hold it.

But I still maintain that, just because you decided that atheism is the best way to go, others can still choose other ways.

If they can come up with evidence I am wrong, sure. But unless they do I don't see them having the right to have choosen another way. I am assuming I have enough information to make a competant decision.

Noted. But to claim that your opponents are not dealing with reality is to, de facto, question their mental accuity.

No it isn't. It is willful self delusion or fantasy. Even the most competant person can imagine. The difference is the ability to sort between what is true and what isn't.

After all, most believers would never accept the rationale given for other religions… but have a blindspot when it comes to their own. What would you say when a person is able to recognize bad arguments except when they are their own?