The Athiest thread

[Salome]

to become a (roman catholic) priest my brother had to study theology
funny enough most people who study theology become atheists or agnostics at best

I will make a point soon though
namely

even though my brother has studied a lot on this it hasn't touched his faith because he also frequently sees the good effects of catholicism

I don't think I really had a point to make


as to the irony of bieng an atheist and U2 fan at the same time
even Alanis Morisette has a better sense of irony
if I would only listen to music that has lyrics according to the way I approach life I could probably burn 3/4 of my cd collection

 

[intedomine]

as to the irony of bieng an atheist and U2 fan at the same time
even Alanis Morisette has a better sense of irony
if I would only listen to music that has lyrics according to the way I approach life I could probably burn 3/4 of my cd collection

Exactly what I was thinking...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

if I would only listen to music that has lyrics according to the way I approach life I could probably burn 3/4 of my cd collection

Same here.

Angela

 

[beli]

Exchange information and not respect or value the other person's motivation/perspective/journey? Seems very clinical to me.

I did not say I didnt respect peoples perspective etc. I said I dont care what people believe in. I do not care if others do not share my views. My opinions and beliefs are mine alone. I do not need other people to agree with my decisions to validate my beliefs. I also expect that noone else requires my validation of their beliefs.

I do admire other peoples journeys eg my husbands uncle Father/Brother Anthony. Tremendous fellow. I admire a great many things his says and does.

I admire many things that A Wanderer has said throughout this thread. I admire Annas thoughts too. I enjoyed listening to the Turkish person (my apologies I have forgotten your name) and John, and many others.

You and I are not able to communicate on the same wavelength. This was highlighted with the kettle story. I say we think in different ways, and you said other things.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I did not say I didnt respect peoples perspective etc. I said I dont care what people believe in. I do not care if others do not share my views. My opinions and beliefs are mine alone. I do not need other people to agree with my decisions to validate my beliefs. I also expect that noone else requires my validation of their beliefs.

You and I are not able to communicate on the same wavelength. This was highlighted with the kettle story. I say we think in different ways, and you said other things.

You know Beli, something's just occured to me, and please by all means, tell me if this assumption is wrong. (As my father used to say if you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME). So at the risk of making an ass out of myself......

Because I identify myself as a christian, you think that any discussion I have with you must be to try and change your mind (ie. prostylize). So when I put forward my perspective you seem to think that I won't be happy until you agree with me.

So for instance in that discussion about understanding the way someone comes to their conclusions, you seem to be a bit offended and made this response:
"I never said that. I dont care if you are content with your own conclusions. Thats your business, not mine."

Look, for what it's worth, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in ramming things down your throat. All I want to do is enjoy a frank and open discussion. If at the end of that you think differently to me, or think I'm a complete whack-job, well of course who am I to question that. I value and respect your opinion (um.., well maybe not the whack-job part ) . And in that vein I hope that my mind is open enough and that I would have enough respect to listen carefully to what you have to say on this topic, understand where you're coming from, and why you have reached the conclusions you have. Who knows...in the process it may really challenge my position and make me reconsider it.

That's all I'm saying about that understanding the other persons conclusions thing. I would be really stoked to know that you would be interested to know why I believe what I believe- to me that is the essence of respect- giving someone the time of day to really get where they are coming from. It is in no way a concession to their belief framework.

I guess that's why when I was discussing what I believe to be a reasonable approach to looking at the bible in an emperical way, it seemed to me to be dismissive to not even enter into a dialogue about what I was saying, and just to say in effect- well the bible's a load of *@^# - couldn't even be bothered.

Please don't assume that we can't communicate on the same level- and please that kettle story was not about the way I think, it was to explain the difference between the questions "why" and "how".

I trust we can still have a meaningful dialogue.

As it's just ticked over midnight let me wish you a merry christmas!

Peace,
Leigh

 

[A_Wanderer]

Merry Christmas - a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[AcrobatMan]

Merry Christmas - a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Yes ..love...peace ..all

 

[beli]

Because I identify myself as a christian, you think that any discussion I have with you must be to try and change your mind (ie. prostylize). So when I put forward my perspective you seem to think that I won't be happy until you agree with me.

I really dont know how to say this so you understand. I am not an embittered Ex-Christian. I did not grow up in a Christian household and then reject the church. I have no pent up resentment towards the church.

Without trying to sounding wanky, I was born and raised an atheist as was my father and his father. I never met my greatgrandparents so I have no idea how far back it goes in my family. I was also raised in the outback a long long way from the media and Christians. I have said this before.

In your particular case, with you, this particular Christian, I do feel like some of your posts are trying to convince me of something Im not interested in. Otherwise why would you keep repeating yourself. I actually feel like you have an issue with atheists and are attempting, conscious or not, to superimpose some kind of religious hate onto my posts.

when I was discussing what I believe to be a reasonable approach to looking at the bible

I have addressed this before.

1. Im discussing atheism/theism and you are discussing religion/Christianity
2. I am not going to dedicate my life to further reading of something Im not interested in.
3. I do not believe the bible is evidence any more than the Iliad.

and please that kettle story was not about the way I think, it was to explain the difference between the questions "why" and "how".

The kettle boiling (as distinct from the kettle is on)story is the way you think, whether you like it or not. You quoted it because it appeals to you, its what you consider right. See, I would never type such a story as I think its incorrect. So the story is about what you think. I still think the story is wrong (for me) and no amount of you telling me you are right and at me or calling me "special" is going to change that.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I really dont know how to say this so you understand. I am not an embittered Ex-Christian. I did not grow up in a Christian household and then reject the church. I have no pent up resentment towards the church.

Without trying to sounding wanky, I was born and raised an atheist as was my father and his father. I never met my greatgrandparents so I have no idea how far back it goes in my family. I was also raised in the outback a long long way from the media and Christians. I have said this before.

Not once have I called you an embittered Ex-Christian or said you grew up in a Christian household and then rejected the church. Never have I suggested you have pent up resentment towards the church.

Arrrrgghhh! Whether you grew up in a dark hole in the ground in antarctica or wandered naked with a herd of wilderbeasts until age 11 is of little or no consequence to the point.

I accept you are an atheist through and through. I am not trying to "superimpose some kind of religious hate" onto your posts as you suggest. When have I said that?

1. Im discussing atheism/theism and you are discussing religion/Christianity

No. I am discussing atheism. The simple thing you don't seem to appreciate is that as I have found evidence for the existance of God in the claims of christianity, this is a valid area of discussion in a thread that is discussing the existance of God. It is one thing to disagree- in the context of the discussion that is your perogative. It is another thing however, to basically rubbish my perspective without even being willing to engage it. That is plain rude.

2. I am not going to dedicate my life to further reading of something Im not interested in.

Nor did i ask you to dedicate your life to it.

3. I do not believe the bible is evidence any more than the Iliad.

That is fine. But don't just ignore the evidence I've laid out for it if you're going to pass judgement on it. Have the decency to back it with a reason.

Originally posted by beli
The kettle boiling (as distinct from the kettle is on)story is the way you think, whether you like it or not. You quoted it because it appeals to you, its what you consider right. See, I would never type such a story as I think its incorrect. So the story is about what you think. I still think the story is wrong (for me) and no amount of you telling me you are right and at me or calling me "special" is going to change that.

My use of the wink smilie was not some kind of tool to change your mind It is my humble attempt to show the tone I have said things in- as I said I'm pretty crap at using smilies. I can't believe we are still talking about that story actually. It was a rather insignificant part of what I have posted and not some kind of arguement I am trying to convice you about. For peats sake can you get this:
1)The story is an illustration
2)An illustration is a way of expressing something with a story.
3)What is being expressed is only in the mind of the writer (ie. ME!)
4)This particaular story was to explain something to do with my discussions with A_Wanderer
- namely the difference between two questions. One was "How has life evolved" the other was "Why has life evolved".
5)The story is neither "right" or "wrong" it is just a simple illustration
6) If you can't get what I was trying to say with it- it either means my choice of a story or use of words was inadequate to explain this concept to you
7)I did not quote it because it appeals to me or because I think it is "right". I chose it to indicate a very small, insignificant point.

You have appeared to take it as an indication that I don't ask enquiring questions of the world around me. Not only have you misunderstood my point, you have misunderstood me.

Can anyone else see what I am saying. If so please can you explain it to Beli, as I am sick of discussing this stupid story.

 

[alexvilagosh]

My fathers family is catholic and my mothers family are anglican. My father is a agnostic, though my mother believes in god, she doesn't go to church. My older sister is a regular church goer, and my younger sister is agnostic too. I'd say I'm agnostic, though I hightly doubt there is a god, but not to the point of saying there isn't one.

A_Wanderer: Are you from Melbourne, Australia or Melbourne, Florida? And is that an avatar from the Futurama forum PEEL? If so, I've got over 5000 posts there Futurama is great though.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Melbourne Australia and a huge futurama fan (Like Melllvar I watch the DVD's over and over again) but alas not a big PEEL poster.

 

[indra]

Can anyone else see what I am saying. If so please can you explain it to Beli, as I am sick of discussing this stupid story.

I think that story shows that language is imprecise, and can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people using it. It's one of the reasons topics such as religion and politics are generally not discussed in polite company.

Of course, it's fine to discuss in this forum since we aren't polite company.

 

[alexvilagosh]

Melbourne Australia and a huge futurama fan (Like Melllvar I watch the DVD's over and over again) but alas not a big PEEL poster.

Haha, nice. You should join us there more often.

I've got 23 pages of this thread to read Then I may be able to actually join in the dicussion

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

One of the things that I've often wondered about in terms of atheism is as an atheist, what basis do you have for ethics. Those who have read this thread will no doubt be aware that I have a christian worldview. But I'm interested to hear from atheists as to how they go about constructing a framework for ethical behaviour and what makes something ultimately right or wrong.

I guess the line of discussion would start off with the issue of life and taking life. If there is no god, and life is just a result of chance, then why is it wrong to take another's away? Wouldn't a darwinian approach be to suggest that the stongest should survive while the weak die out?

 

[dandy]

One of the things that I've often wondered about in terms of atheism is as an atheist, what basis do you have for ethics. Those who have read this thread will no doubt be aware that I have a christian worldview. But I'm interested to hear from atheists as to how they go about constructing a framework for ethical behaviour and what makes something ultimately right or wrong.

I guess the line of discussion would start off with the issue of life and taking life. If there is no god, and life is just a result of chance, then why is it wrong to take another's away?

mutual respect for the dignity of fellow human beings
fundamental principles of justice that allow people to live together in a community in relative peace and security

basic common decency

this question kind of irritates me, because it presumes that my lack of faith in a higher power somehow reduces me to this moralless person, operating outside the sphere of god/good. i base my ethical principles on pretty much the same thing as you do--i do my best to respect the other 6 billion people on the planet. you don't need religion to tell you that it's wrong to take what's not yours, that violence is bad for society as a whole, that human beings basically strive to live in security and peace. these aren't religious principles, they're universal ideals of human life.

Wouldn't a darwinian approach be to suggest that the stongest should survive while the weak die out?

this is how the world works in the market driven economy. it may not be pretty or fair, but this is our world.


on a side note, i have a little story to share that's entirely relevant to this thread. one of my best friends on the planet (and roommate for several years) is a believer. she absolutely believes in god and jesus, and has been on a quest to find a church that coincides with her beliefs. she's been running into a lot of issues with the denominations, finding that they have fundamental principles that she can't accept. she's spent a lot of time talking these things over with me, and i am supportive of her quest for spiritual fulfillment despite the fact that i do not believe. we've had some amazing conversations, and i've learned a lot from her.

what i've learned from her religous quests: even though she believes, and i don't, we share the same fundamental beliefs about human nature and the meaning of life, even similar concerns about the role (and limitations) of religion. what seems to be a massive difference in spiritual matters doesn't amount to much in terms of how we both see the world.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

Hey Dandy,

Thanks for your response. It wasn't meant to presume that you have no basis for morality- just the opposite really- I was asking out of curiousity.

In fact I had assumed that I might recieve an answer like "mutual respect for the dignity of fellow human beings". And I think that it is difficult to operate an ordered and safe society without these basic assumptions. This is an admirable quality in anyone, and as your story points out it is possible to have these without the necessity of belief in God. But I guess what really intregues me is aside from just deciding to live in this way, what underlying elements are there to keep to this code? Self preservation maybe?

But then what about integrity/lying, cheating (say in commerce), unfaithfulness etc. where one may argue there is no physical harm (including to self). You mentioned fundamental principles of justice, but where do these principles come from, and how are they arrived at in the same way? ie. What one person may consider just may be unjust to another.

 

[Saracene]

One of the things that I've often wondered about in terms of atheism is as an atheist, what basis do you have for ethics. Those who have read this thread will no doubt be aware that I have a christian worldview. But I'm interested to hear from atheists as to how they go about constructing a framework for ethical behaviour and what makes something ultimately right or wrong.

This kind of question always puzzles me. Unless you happen to grow up in total isolation in a cave somewhere, not one of us grows up in a vacuum where at some point you construct a framework for ethical behaviour for yourself. Whether the society you grow up in is religious or not, you are inevitably going to be taught "right from wrong" by your parents, elders, family, school, the stories and art of your culture which you absorb from childhood, etc. Of course that's not to say that you may not denounce or re-evaluate those values some time later on (especially if you move to another society and have a chance to look at the place you grew up in from the outside), but the point is that in any given society there're -always- rules for behaviour that no one is completely immune to and which inevitably leave an imprint.

 

[indra]

One of the things that I've often wondered about in terms of atheism is as an atheist, what basis do you have for ethics. Those who have read this thread will no doubt be aware that I have a christian worldview. But I'm interested to hear from atheists as to how they go about constructing a framework for ethical behaviour and what makes something ultimately right or wrong.

I guess the line of discussion would start off with the issue of life and taking life. If there is no god, and life is just a result of chance, then why is it wrong to take another's away? Wouldn't a darwinian approach be to suggest that the stongest should survive while the weak die out?

This question surprises me...I mean, do you only think that murder is wrong because God told you so? Do you only have an ethical system because God directed it? That just strikes me as so odd.

So what's the basis for my framework of ethical behaviour? It's actually very simple -- empathy (the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner *). Essentially, if I wouldn't want something happening to me or someone I care for, I know it's wrong to do it to someone else. I don't need a god to tell me that, and I'm very surprised (and a bit horrified) that others do.



* definition from Webster's online

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I didn't actually explain my own ethical framework- instead because this is "the atheist thread" I was just asking how an atheist might work these things out. But I guess sinsce you bought it up...

To me the universe is created by an ethcial creator. As such we are made in that creator's image. This is why I believe we are able to percieve things such as empathy like you've mentioned. It is not so much that God arbitrarily decides "X" is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Rather morality is an expression of his nature. There are absolutes in this model.

What are the absolutes in your empathy model? What I mean is what if person A decides that child abuse is ok for his loved ones or even himself, does this make it ok for them to abuse person B. I'm sure you would probably say not. So this is in essence what I'm asking. What is the underlying framework that you can tie your system of ethics to. And it does not have to be a god. I'm just curious to know.

Please don't take offence, I don't for a moment want to suggest that atheism is somehow synonomous with unethical. But I am interested to know how you might sought out these issues in your own mind.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

This kind of question always puzzles me. Unless you happen to grow up in total isolation in a cave somewhere, not one of us grows up in a vacuum where at some point you construct a framework for ethical behaviour for yourself. Whether the society you grow up in is religious or not, you are inevitably going to be taught "right from wrong" by your parents, elders, family, school, the stories and art of your culture which you absorb from childhood, etc. Of course that's not to say that you may not denounce or re-evaluate those values some time later on (especially if you move to another society and have a chance to look at the place you grew up in from the outside), but the point is that in any given society there're -always- rules for behaviour that no one is completely immune to and which inevitably leave an imprint.

Rules are not an ethical framework, they are agreed values. Yes they are important but they are easily discarded too. What I'm asking is what can you base rules on.

Imagine for instance that someone founds a new country with rules that say killing others is ok, stealing is fine etc etc. why is that any less valid than the rules in your country?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What are the absolutes in your empathy model? What I mean is what if person A decides that child abuse is ok for his loved ones or even himself, does this make it ok for them to abuse person B. I'm sure you would probably say not. So this is in essence what I'm asking. What is the underlying framework that you can tie your system of ethics to. And it does not have to be a god. I'm just curious to know.

I personally hold to the belief that people are entitled to do whatever they would like to do in this world, as long as it's not harmful or endangers people's lives. If somebody does something that is harmful or endangers people's lives, that is when I step in. And since child abuse falls into that category, I would do what I could to stop that, and I sure as hell wouldn't partake in it myself. Same would of course go for murder or rape or things along that line, too.

Angela

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

I personally hold to the belief that people are entitled to do whatever they would like to do in this world, as long as it's not harmful or endangers people's lives. If somebody does something that is harmful or endangers people's lives, that is when I step in. And since child abuse falls into that category, I would do what I could to stop that, and I sure as hell wouldn't partake in it myself. Same would of course go for murder or rape or things along that line, too.

Angela

Good post Angela, only who decides what is harmful?

 

[indra]

What are the absolutes in your empathy model? What I mean is what if person A decides that child abuse is ok for his loved ones or even himself, does this make it ok for them to abuse person B. I'm sure you would probably say not. So this is in essence what I'm asking. What is the underlying framework that you can tie your system of ethics to. And it does not have to be a god. I'm just curious to know.

Please don't take offence, I don't for a moment want to suggest that atheism is somehow synonomous with unethical. But I am interested to know how you might sought out these issues in your own mind.

But I already told you how I arrive at my system. What Jimmy Bob thinks really has no bearing on what I think. If he said he got his belief that child abuse was fine from the Bible, would you just say, "Oh! Well that's OK then"? I seriously doubt it. So how do you justify the differences in the way you and Jimmy Bob understand the same thing? I think you would say, "Well, he's understanding it incorrectly."

So...Jimmy Bob is doing the same thing with what you call my empathy model. If Jimmy Bob truly thinks that child abuse is fine, then he is a sociopath and nobody should change their view of what is right or wrong because of what a sociopath thinks.

 

[Saracene]

Rules are not an ethical framework, they are agreed values. Yes they are important but they are easily discarded too. What I'm asking is what can you base rules on.

I see what you mean. I thought about it many times, and IMO there's nothing out there -but- agreed values. Which can be discarded, true, but the fact that they're flexible also makes social changes possible.

Overall, it's just hard for me to believe in absolutes when people throughout the ages agreed on different definitions of absolutes and how they should be applied in real life.

Imagine for instance that someone founds a new country with rules that say killing others is ok, stealing is fine etc etc. why is that any less valid than the rules in your country?

There's no need to imagine a new country; if I remember correctly, death penalty is still active in many countries around the world.

 

[indra]

Overall, it's just hard for me to believe in absolutes when people throughout the ages agreed on different definitions of absolutes and how they should be applied in real life.

I agree. The idea of moral absolutes gives me a bit of a case of the willies. What I notice throughout history is that there are many cases of moral absolutes that later weren't absolute anymore. Our understanding of, well, everything, has evolved over the ages (and will continue to evolve), and so absolutes do change.

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

But I already told you how I arrive at my system. What Jimmy Bob thinks really has no bearing on what I think. If he said he got his belief that child abuse was fine from the Bible, would you just say, "Oh! Well that's OK then"? I seriously doubt it. So how do you justify the differences in the way you and Jimmy Bob understand the same thing? I think you would say, "Well, he's understanding it incorrectly."

So...Jimmy Bob is doing the same thing with what you call my empathy model. If Jimmy Bob truly thinks that child abuse is fine, then he is a sociopath and nobody should change their view of what is right or wrong because of what a sociopath thinks.

Indra, can I just say I really appreciate the way that you take the time to post thoughtfully. I've seen the way you've posted in many different threads and you usually do so with good will and a healthy degree of wit. While we might have a very different approach to life I value the opportunity to interact in this way.

The example I was giving regarding (as you've named him) Jimmy Bob was to reveal one flaw, as I saw it, in your basis for ethics. Namely that it can't really work on a community scale because of the differences in what one person may consider to be empathic as compared to another. The reason it matters is because we have to live together.

Now you have suggested that a biblical approach to ethics will run in to the same problem. While I agree that people can certainly reach different conclusions as to biblical interpretation, the difference in my model and yours is that there is ultimate truth. Sure I may not have a mortgage on it all (in fact I am quite sure I don't), but it doesn't change the fact that there are moral absolutes and acountability. What the bible does provide is a point of reference with which to at least draw some boudaries. For instance it is not a difficult thing to build a case for the value of life.

In the "empathy" model the goal posts can be moved constantly.

Now I see the posts about not believing in absolutes, and while I thought that's the only conclusion one could come to atheisticly, I guess I was kind of hoping there would be some basis. Because to my mind that seems the more terrifying option. With no absolutes, you can't really say that something is wrong, just that it is not benificial or that you don't like it. Jimmy Bob then isn't a sociopath, just has a different view.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good post Angela, only who decides what is harmful?

I'm just going by the laws regarding this stuff-according to the law, it's illegal to abuse, murder, rape, and so on and so forth, other people, and for good reason, because all of those things are harmful and endanger people's lives. The laws have decided that since this stuff is harmful, that's why it's not allowed.

I also personally agree with indra and them on the absolutes thing-everyone can have their own ideas of what is good and bad, so to have absolutes in regards to thoughts doesn't work with me. But the laws prevent people from acting on things that, while they don't see them as bad, are proven to be harmful to others, so that's why certain actions are limited, and thoughts aren't (or shouldn't be).

I hope that made sense to all who read that.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I personally hold to the belief that people are entitled to do whatever they would like to do in this world, as long as it's not harmful or endangers people's lives. If somebody does something that is harmful or endangers people's lives, that is when I step in. And since child abuse falls into that category, I would do what I could to stop that, and I sure as hell wouldn't partake in it myself. Same would of course go for murder or rape or things along that line, too.

Angela

How do you measure what is harmful to another? What one person deems harmful? What the majority deems harmful? Harmful only to people?

It is an easy thing to say, but nearly impossible to measure without some external frame of reference.

You can't simply point to a law as the reference for what is harmful, because some laws passed by a majority are harmful to a minority.

Also, if there are no absolutes, then it is relative and everything you argue for is relative to you and cannot be made to apply to everyone else.

 

[Angela Harlem]

What if your morals structure is based pretty much on reaction alone? You use that as your measure?

Say for instance, I'll use me cos I cant offend anyone lol. I have based my moral values on what my actions and thoughts do to others, how it's taken, the reactions my actions and words or views may cause. It could be deemed very restrictive and living by what others want, but as a result I dont believe in the death penalty, I dont actively encourage abortion, I dont believe in violence, I dont believe in isolating anyone simply because something about them might be different to me or something I dont understand (homosexuality, race, gender, age), I belief abuse is wrong in all forms, stealing is wrong...Anything which harms or has a negative effect on someone else is wrong. On the surface, you'd say that's all good stuff. Valuing life, honesty, respect and all the rest. Do I need God to do this though? Does a lack of God make it less commendable? Or invalid?

Dont think so Tim.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

How do you measure what is harmful to another? What one person deems harmful? What the majority deems harmful? Harmful only to people?

No, good point, it doesn't have to be harmful to just people-animals can factor into this, too (although in a way, I'd be a bit hypocritical, then, 'cause I've been known to kill spiders...).

"Harmful" in the sense that it will cause physical pain, like bruises, cuts, black eyes, broken bones, etc., etc., and in the sense that if it's done, it could kill somebody (although one exception I'd have is if you were protecting yourself or a loved one from an attacker-if you need to defend yourself there, no problem for me).

As for opinions on what's harmful...even those who have no problem with abusing others know full well that what they're doing causes someone else physical pain. Everyone may have their own ideas of what is acceptable treatment towards others, but you won't find too many people out there who will disagree that beating someone up leaves physical scars, or that shooting someone with a gun or stabbing them with a knife can potentially kill them.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
You can't simply point to a law as the reference for what is harmful, because some laws passed by a majority are harmful to a minority.

True.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Also, if there are no absolutes, then it is relative and everything you argue for is relative to you and cannot be made to apply to everyone else.

I don't agree with absolutes namely because there are exceptions to a lot of situations in this world, and it's hard to say that something's wrong all the way across the board or right all the way across the board as a result of that.

Angela