http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/ This has been up for long enough, it's probably been touched on at some point, but if it hasn't, it's a neat little bunch of games. That wasn't my point. We're having another God spat on the main PCS board, specifically in the values voter thread, and it reminded me of the Battleground God game. Some of the questions: It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists. My answers to this got this response: Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction! A contradiction, maybe, but not a wise way to live. I've come to agree with Kurt Vonnegut in "Timequake" - faith isn't something that should be taken away frivolously. I interpreted the question as to whether it was justified for SOMEONE ELSE to believe in God, and I'm fine with that. In order to function in society, you have to be. I believe Voltaire felt the same way, although I wouldn't go so far as to say one should profess faith hypocritically simply to keep the peace. Nor should atheists be forced to, say, pray in school. "In God We Trust" on the money? I don't trust God, and even if I did He couldn't get me to trust the money. I like to think I'm a pretty militant atheist, but I don't care what other people believe, and I certainly can't be bothered with trying to convince anyone. Now that I've written all this, it occurs to me that Values Voters are actually all about forcing their values onto me, so maybe the Battleground God quiz knows something I don't.
Wait a minute... don't you realize that the Gay Agenda forced Larry Craig into his wide stance? And that it had as one of its platforms the coversion of Ted Haggard to the Gay Lifestyle?
So "values voters" should not have rallies and conferences to solidify and make known their preferences? Sorry. I see the gay/lesbian lobby to be active in a very similar way. In the end, both sides have one person/one vote.
What laws do gay groups lobby for that would control the actions of others? The reason I pity the religious right is that they feel forced to rely on the laws of man to prop up their weak faith.
That is a really cool site. I'll have to play more with it when I have the time. But this is what it responded to my idea of god: Sorry Diego. They are questioning you because they know not what they speak of. (ok, that last sentence is a joke)
You're like a broken pencil. You miss the point. The "values voters" want to pass laws that force everyone to be just like them or suffer legal consequences. Gays and lesbians want laws that make them equal under the law and otherwise leaves them alone. They are not trying to pass laws that force everyone to be gay. If you can't (or, more likely, won't) see the difference there, that says more about you than about anyone else.
I didn't bring up the subject of gays. I was responding to a previous post. My point was in response to those who were critical of a group of people who got together to rally their side to encourage and reinforce their belief in God and that He has blessed this nation to achieve great things. They have a right to that assembly. Where the wheels come off the wagon is when those same people forget that that same God forgives many things and tells us to leave the judging up to Him. In God's eyes, making up excuses to support a corrupt politician who just happens to agree with one's particular POV on a certain matter is the same as murder, ie., both of those people will miss out on heaven. We all need to live our belief and let the world judge us by that.
You responded to my post and I then responded to your response. You responded to my post which was about the difference between the ultimate objectives of the "values voters" and other groups like gays and lesbians. Lack of parreciation of that difference causes people to create false moral equivalnces like the one offered in your post. I wish someone would tell that to the so-called "Christians" who are judging everyone. And the point here is exactly that the "values voters" aren't content to just live their own beliefs themselves and leave other people alone.
one hit and two "bitten bullets", but I can't say I agree with them I disagreed with that, as a complete reverse of morals would affect everything, including my own moral judgements, and my earlier desire to have a god wanting suffering to be lessened would no longer exist. the difference here is clearly that there have been extensive searches of the area where the loch ness monster is supposed to exist and the evidence points very strongly to nothing being there. a person who is genuinely mad is not, from a personal point of view, morally wrong if he genuinely believes he is morally right. That's not the same as justifying a rapist. Interesting though.
Not necessarily - he could just tell people that things that were once good are now bad without changing anyones internal sense of morality. For example, he might conceivably tell people to kill their sons and those people would still feel badly about doing so, but they would have to do it to be moral.